The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Social Justice Jihadis Defend the Violence in Berkeley
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From the UC Berkeley Daily Californian:

Violence helped ensure safety of students
BY JUAN PRIETO | SPECIAL TO THE DAILY CAL LAST UPDATED 15 HOURS AGO

A national debate on freedom of speech has sparked since the night of Feb. 1, when a Breitbart hatemonger’s speech was cancelled because of radical acts against replaceable property at my school, UC Berkeley.

… They want to ensure that there is a distinction between the rioters and the students who were there to protest peacefully.

Well, I’m here to thank the radical measures the AntiFas took to ensure my safety. …

As an outspoken undocumented student at UC Berkeley, this frightened me. I walked around campus constantly looking over my shoulder that day, uncertain whether the doxing of my online profile had already placed a target on me.

On November 7, 2016, I blogged about illegal alien Juan Prieto’s anti-free speech op-ed in the New York Times:

NYT: Undocumented Student Denounces Free Speech on Immigration Policy
STEVE SAILER • NOVEMBER 7, 2016 •

From the New York Times:

Even at Berkeley, I Face Threats as an Undocumented Student

Now this illegal alien continues his campaign against America’s First Amendment by praising the use of violence to suppress free speech:

My campus did nothing to stand between my undocumented community and the hateful hands of radicalized white men — the AntiFas did. A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event. Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that. The so-called “violence” against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.

Also from today’s Daily Californian:

Black bloc did what campus should have
BY NEIL LAWRENCE | SPECIAL TO THE DAILY CAL LAST UPDATED 1 HOUR AGO

… On the afternoon of Feb. 1, a few friends and I met up with many other small groups of friends. We gathered off campus, distributed flags, wrote the National Lawyers Guild number on each others’ arms and helped each other make sure our faces were properly covered. Then we started marching.

… We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

That would seem to undermine for Cabinet secretary Robert Reich’s tall tale that the masked blackshirts were Milo’s false flag agents provocateur.

… To those who hate Yiannopoulos and the alt-right but have a hard time condoning black bloc tactics and property damage, I understand that these tactics are extreme. But when you consider everything that activists already tried — when mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left?

And a third from today’s Daily Californian:

Check your privilege when speaking of protests
BY NISA DANG | SPECIAL TO THE DAILY CALLAST UPDATED 20 HOURS AGO

In light of recent events, there has been a resurgence of the belief that in order for a protest to be effective, it must also be nonviolent. This belief especially plagues liberals, who are talented in drafting long Facebook posts about how they are down with the cause, but not really because windows were broken and some white nationalists got their asses beat. Here’s looking at you, Berkeley.

… First, no protest is nonviolent. You are laboring under the assumption that protesters are coming into a peaceful atmosphere and disrupting it through chanting, song and broken windows. This, of course, is a misrepresentation of our society and its treatment of the marginalized. … This is violence. If I know that you are planning to attack me, I’ll do all I can to throw the first punch. …

“As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.” …

To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege. …

Nisa Dang is an alumna of UC Berkeley.

From Nisa Dang’s Linked-In page:

Experience
Field Organizer
Nevada State Democratic Party
July 2016 – November 2016 (5 months)

In other news, an attempted filibuster of Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be Attorney General was broken today, setting him up for final confirmation on Wednesday.

It’s time for rule of law.

 
    []
  1. Calogero says:

    I wonder what Juan Prieto’s SAT scores were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    In this case, who cares? -- there's a far more obvious reason why the little shit shouldn't be there: he's an illegal alien.
    , @Dr. X

    I wonder what Juan Prieto’s SAT scores were.
     
    Hey... don't you know that SATs are part of the oppressive bourgoise power structure intended to maintain white privilege and discriminate against gays, women, transgendered, lesbian, bisexual, queer, non-binary, asking, Latin/a/o/x, underprivileged, undocumented, ESL brown and black people?

    What are you, a member of the KKK or something?

    , @Almost Missouri
    It's a good question. On top of giving away a taxpayer-funded slot at their top state university to someone whose presence is illegal, the traitorous academy almost certainly lowered their admission thresholds to do it. So they are cheaters as well as traitors.

    Shouldn't this be prosecutable?

    , @Jimi
    Juan Prieto transferred in from community college and is majoring in English and Spanish. He will probably graduate to immigrant, ethnic activism or social services.

    Doing the job Americans won't do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/social-justice-jihadis-defend-the-violence-in-berkeley/#comment-1758620
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. To those who hate Yiannopoulos and the alt-right

    Tell me again, who are the haters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Tell me again, who are the haters?"

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.
  3. Robert Reich’s tall tale

    Bwahaha! Tall tale! Reich – at 3′ 4″ shorter than Sam Gamgee!

    Read More
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    Says here he's 4'-11". On the Internet I mean. But holy smokes: I can't imagine I've ever met a non-dwarf man that short.
  4. eah says:
    @Calogero
    I wonder what Juan Prieto's SAT scores were.

    In this case, who cares? — there’s a far more obvious reason why the little shit shouldn’t be there: he’s an illegal alien.

    Read More
  5. neoconned says:

    We are nearing that who/whom pivot point where everything goes up in smoke and anarchy is the rule of the day

    Read More
  6. Dr. X says:
    @Calogero
    I wonder what Juan Prieto's SAT scores were.

    I wonder what Juan Prieto’s SAT scores were.

    Hey… don’t you know that SATs are part of the oppressive bourgoise power structure intended to maintain white privilege and discriminate against gays, women, transgendered, lesbian, bisexual, queer, non-binary, asking, Latin/a/o/x, underprivileged, undocumented, ESL brown and black people?

    What are you, a member of the KKK or something?

    Read More
  7. Steve, for God’s sake, slow down on your posts. I don’t want to stay up all night reading.

    Read More
  8. eah says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    What does it mean to say the HEB is "based on" control of territory?
  9. From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    DeVos was the scalp that they were looking for in order to say "See! We aren't powerless and gelded!" and give the media a few weeks of headlines about Dem unity and Trump's problems with his own party (based off a few cucked senators).

    That they couldn't even manage that puts into light how weak the Democrat position is right now in actual -governing-. They can try to do end runs around Congress and the Executive by running to the Ninth Circuit and pushing the fiction that all legislation is made in a San Fran courthouse.

    However, given the strength and cunning of the Trump/Bannon/Miller triad, I imagine they know that the judiciary is going to have to be broken, and I can only imagine the circumstances where that counterpunch gets deployed will be to KO the judicial activism we will see utilized more and more as the Dems become more desperate. I imagine Trump will use a circumstance that allows him to go for the kill.

    , @Almost Missouri
    I noticed the same thing and I also think it is strange. Their policies may be insane, but the Dems normally have a diabolical cunning when it comes to political advantage, and DeVos is obviously a sideshow, so why expend so much political capital on it?
    , @Greasy William
    The Dem base of clueless urban liberals doesn't really understand Sessions beyond "Racist". DeVos, on the other hand, hits education which is one of their obsessions. Also she is a moron and it looked like the Dems had some chance, however remote, of stopping her confirmation so they are pissed.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    27, My take is the Dems are very beholden to the NEA and affiliated teachers unions that provide the bulk of their funding and boots on the ground and most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left. They failed the teachers' unions in their attempt to protect them from the sea change they will happen to DOE policies.
    , @Prof. Woland
    Teachers are a prime Democratic voting bloc. Attacking De Vos, is just virtue signalling. She also is a threat to common core which is the Trotskiyist attempt to indoctrinate the white kids with radical politics. Charter schools are just a side show.
    , @guest
    I think it was a matter of going after the softest target to get some momentum on your side. Like how the Patriots didn't start hucking the ball down the field at the beginning of the second half of the superbowl. They made adjustments, cobbled drives together, went on fourth down and tried an onside kick. Slapping down what to them is a non-starter--Betsy Devos? In the cabinet? Of the *United States!* What's next, Bimbo Palin in the department of energy?--was supposed to get the ball rolling.

    Now, it's "We can't even do that right, woe is me."
  10. Ttjy says:

    I can’t believe this is what this country has turned into.

    I saw a Republican congressman from NY state on Tucker talking about how we are a land of immigrants and a melting pot. He says we need all the migrant workers to pick apples in NY too. The orchard owners say no Americans will do the job even when they raised the pay. He didn’t say how much to.

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know,

    The congressman sounded like an episode of School House Rock with his praise of the traditions of immigration. He says it’s who we are and we have always been that way. Did he stop to think that the world has changed in the almost 400 years since the Pilgrims?

    If he likes tradition, maybe we should go back to slavery and women not voting too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Ttjy, I am a NYer who lives on the edge of NY's apple country. The Cornell agricultural school has developed dwarf trees that take up less space per tree and produce the same yield per acre as the older trees that required a ladder to pick. The new trees, about six foot tall, are often tied back like grape vines because of their immense yield. I am sure that there is an apple picking machine in the near future which will replace most manual labor. Damaged fruit (bruising) is fine for cider, vinegar and apple sauce. The Concord grape crop, which is huge in WNY, is almost 100% mechanically picked. This Congressman is pandering for cross over votes.
    , @guest
    Nevermind tradition, because this was not Who We Were 400 years ago, and if he doesn't know that no one should bother listening to him.
    , @ben tillman

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know. . . .
     
    If you're bad on immigration, you aren't a conservative.
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Incidentally, I always thought Jeff Sessions looked like something out of Deliverance. He’s a good pick for scaring the illegals.

    Read More
  12. SPMoore8 says:

    In other words: If someone wants to exercise the right of free speech, and no peaceful measures have been successful to block that exercise of free speech, violence is a legitimate alternative.

    How many people actually believe that?

    Needless to say this is the direct opposite of what Free Speech at Berkeley meant 50 years ago.

    Back in the day, there was a poster of Governor Reagan, six gun drawn, and wearing a cowboy hat, with the notorious caption, “If they want a bloodbath to silence the demonstrators, let’s get it over with.” Substitute “speakers” for “demonstrators” and it would be fitting for the walls of any of these “Antifas.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    "Needless to say this is the direct opposite of what Free Speech at Berkeley meant 50 years ago."

    What was it about 50 years ago? On-campus political activism, right? Nobody then or now thought it was going to be anything right-of-center.

    Violence was a central part of the far left's tactics and it still is. When you hate both God and man, there's no reason to refrain from destruction, in fact, it becomes your preferred mode.
    , @MBlanc46
    I'm pretty sure that's not what "free speech" meant at Berkeley in the 1960s. Sixties radicals were just as interested in silencing those who gainsaid Leftist dogma as are our contemporary Leftist radicals.
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Violence helped ensure safety of students”

    What kind of crazy logic is that?

    So, the safety of students who wanted to listen to Milo had to be violated to ensure the safety of students who were under no threat? Real violence needed to protect people from imaginary violence? Surreal world.

    Also, this illegal fool must really hate national laws and national sovereignty. By what right should he be in the US?

    The great lesson to learn from recent American history is IF YOU GIVE AN INCH, THEY DEMAND A MILE. Anglo-American magnanimity was one of the great follies in history. Not necessarily because magnanimity is always wrong, but it should never be wasted on the wrong people who exploit it and see it as weakness. It should never be shown if it makes your side looks like a pushover or piggy bank that can be raided endlessly.

    When illegals say they have the right to invade while citizens are made to feel ashamed to believe that they have a right to defend their own nation, the world is upside down.

    Since when do illegals and thugs have moral advantage over decent law-abiding citizens?

    But then, American SUBMISSION to the GLOB was bound to lead to new narratives and orthodoxies whose aim was to cripple and paralyze white America. That was the Huge shift in America. Illegals act this way ONLY BECAUSE they have benediction from the top of the food chain, and the GOP did almost nothing over the yrs to alter this perception.

    “But when you consider everything that activists already tried — when mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left?”

    What is left? How about free speech and free assembly? That is what is left.

    I mean, what is a university to do? Shut down free speech and free assembly because a bunch of radicals and wussies can’t stand the views of the other side?

    If a bunch of radicals, brats, and thugs can’t tolerate a speech and if the university doesn’t comply with their demands, violence is justified to shut down the speech?

    Since when does a ‘liberal democracy’ work that way?

    These lowlife scum have exposed themselves. It’s all about the Power, but they’d been hiding behind ‘free speech’ and ‘liberal democracy’ all these yrs. When their highfalutin principles were put to the test, they folded and acted like censorious thugs.

    Well, it’s good for our side cuz the Other Side openly admitted that they prefer thug behavior to free speech.

    Read More
  14. Escher says:

    I knew Berkeley was over the top leftist, but this is a whole new level of insanity. Violence against law abiding citizens and businesses is being justified by an illegal immigrant, as is suppressing free speech of people whose opinions do not match those of the prevailing orthodoxy.
    Mao’s red guards would be proud.
    By the way, the comments on the Daily Californian are overwhelmingly against the author.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Escher, Love the term..."replaceable property", like the protestors were going to come back later and make everything right.
    , @NOTA
    Principled defense of free speech is extremely rare--most people defend free speech of their own ideas but don't really support it for ideas they disagree with, and oppose it for ideas they find offensive. Someday the censorious SJWs and the censorious religious people and the censorious HR/corporate people will all work together to make sure we have "responsible, properly controlled" speech. We'll be a lot poorer for that, but the only way to avoid that outcome is for a lot of people to care about free speech even when it's from people they despise.
  15. Quite delicious. These intellectual featherweights clearly have some delusions about the strength of their arguments. Generation snowflake meets the heat of the internet. Their lunacy is clear for all to see. Free speech = Violence; Sovereignty = Fascism; Meritocracy = White Supremacism,…and so on & so forth. The children of the Frankfurt School aren’t looking so bright when they actually have to face scrutiny from an Uncucked opposition.

    Read More
  16. As someone who breaks federal law, he faces threat of consequences from the law that he broke. That’s how it’s supposed to work. That’s like robbing a store and complaining about being under threat of getting punished. Guys like that really lower my sympathy for illegal immigrants. This guy has the nerve to shout his crime in a newspaper and thank violent antifas… That university should get in trouble. They’ve cultivated this acceptance of violence against alt right types. And they didn’t make many arrests despite ample evidence of planned and coordinated ideological violence. The mayor of Berkeley should get in trouble too for telling Milo that his speech isn’t welcome in the city.

    Read More
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Note that alumna author Nisa Dang, who wrote “Check your privilege when speaking of protests” (not meant to be ironic, I think), is a field organizer for the Democrats:

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/nisadang/

    “Field Organizer
    Company NameNevada State Democratic Party
    Dates EmployedJul 2016 – Nov 2016 Employment Duration5 mos LocationLas Vegas, Nevada
    · Managed a team of volunteer leaders in order to execute GOTV operations that successfully elected 38 Democratic candidates
    · Organized 1000+ union members for pre-GOTV contact and mobilization of over 75000 voters
    · Mobilized East Las Vegas and Henderson communities by registering over 400 voters and coordinating voter contact events”

    In her article (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/), she writes: “As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.”

    It can’t be stated enough on this blog that pluralism and mass third world immigration are not compatible.

    Read More
  18. It’s time for rule of law

    With respect to both Juan Prieto and Neil Lawrence and their kind, it’s been time for rule of law for more than two decades now.

    Trump’s done a lot of talking. It’s well past time for that.

    Read More
  19. bomag says:

    This is just a complete epitome of today’s US of A: illegal immigrant is here because “its” home country is too violent; turns new home into clone of old home; wonders why new home now sucks; blames White men; gets “A” from Bezerkley.

    Read More
  20. AndrewR says:

    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Heckuva job, Donny.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Oh, Little Marco. How lonely and dull your days must be of late.
    , @David Davenport
    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Please explain why the travel ban is utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

    Might some of your peepul be banned?
  21. Let us hope that AG Jeff Sessions will act instantly to deport Juan Prieto, Jose Antonio Vargas whom Enemedia-Pravda have had the gall to hire to lecture us Americans in our own country with his “That’s Not Who We Are-ism,” and all the other prominent shameless big mouth lawbreaking in-our-face-insulting illegal alien imminvaders who have no right be here on our sovereign soil. In short: expel the big fish so the little fish will have no Big Shot illegal alien to make rude noise for them when their turn to go home to their own family reunification comes up.

    We ordinary Americans have endured more than enough of foreigners breaking our laws, violating our sovereignty, and staying here illegally to wag their fingers in our faces – and the real blame and shame belong upon our arrogant traitorous elect who have allowed this insult to us to go on not just for as long as it has gone on, but who allowed it to begin in the first place.

    Read More
    • Agree: IAmCorn, Opinionator, Anonym
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Well said. These people need to be brought out of the shadows..........and into the bright fluorescent light of an ICE holding-cell.

    And while the DoJ is at it, visa-procurement operations like the one run by Khyzer Khan need more scrutiny too. Maybe not him specifically (Gold Star Family!), just everybody with whom he has any dealings.

  22. The problem with “hate speech”, which apparently requires rioting and vandalism to suppress, is that it is defined in such a way that only “oppressors” can engage in it. Any of the “oppressed” minorities cannot emit “hate speech” because their anger and rage are justified by their “oppression”. So, “hate speech” is an inaccurate term, as hate is universal as a human emotion, but only the angry (or, in Milo’s case, snarky) speech of white Americans (or Europeans) is defined as “hate speech”.

    I, once upon a time, was an ACLU member because I was impressed that they defended the rights of American Nazis (a minute sect, needless to say) to march in Skokie, Illinois. I don’t think they made that mistake twice. I’ve never heard of the ACLU defending anyone’s rights since then who wasn’t on the left or one of the left’s designated victim clients.

    I imagine that the logic behind Robt. Reich’s supposition that the Black Bloc rioters were a false flag operation from Trumpist ranks, is because it is transparently obvious to most anyone with a decent share of brain cells that the end result of rioting anarchists trying to suppress free speech is to discredit the left. Surely the left couldn’t be so stupid?

    Wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I, once upon a time, was an ACLU member because I was impressed that they defended the rights of American Nazis (a minute sect, needless to say) to march in Skokie, Illinois. I don’t think they made that mistake twice.
     
    They weren't Nazis, and it wasn't a mistake. It was a public-relations stunt that paid incredible dividends, as you can attest.
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Have you seen Yvette Felarca, in the video below, who helped organize the Berkeley protest? She calls for more militants protests. She’s very well-spoken and kind of scary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPrRLyFTzSU&ebc=ANyPxKpOYGk7zIbcVWiboUgKJ1pyRnsy1bSvASDglMBrv9GYLSkiOwozkJRXWhDa6qYqwWjPL5i9

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/radical-berkeley-anti-milo-protest-leader-no-regrets/

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Have you seen _____
     
    I've seen pictures of Stalin and Mao.

    She spouts the usual radical Left stuff: "all our violence is justified because it is all in self defense"; "we are under attack everywhere, all the time, by people using violence; thus we must get our guns into this knife fight... and by the way, not agreeing with us 100% means that you are using violence against us."

    She assumes her side will prevail in the end, and thus be able to write history and whitewash little inconveniences like property damage and undue violence.

    This sums up so much:

    Felarca and the group she leads—the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary...

    Yeah, the fight for equality entails riots. And where oh where are the Hubert Humphrey types who assured us that affirmative action would be a brief program and yield positive dividends? Now it looks like the country gave its enemies a weapon.

    , @ogunsiron
    I believe Yvette is the woman who led the antifas who attacked (and got utterly destroyed by) a legal demonstration in Sacramento by the traditional youth workers' party (admitedly, real nazis but besides the point). Antifas outright assaulted the tiny group of demonstrators but things didn't go too well for bolsheviks: several antifas got stabbed! The leader of a violent gang is thus free to show her face on tv. She's got backup.
  24. Rod1963 says:

    I’m all for violence and rioting by the unhinged as long as it’s kept on college campuses where it belongs or in cities controlled by liberals. It’s a win win for the rest of the country. If the price of peace is the torching of every liberal bastion of higher learning in the country, then it’s a price worth paying.

    Read More
  25. Let’s not forget the law-abiding, who have persevered even in the face of incompetent bureaucracy. These law abiding few who want to be part of what America is supposed to stand for, believe in the rule of law, unlike the squatters.

    Read More
  26. And in this one they have even justified our preemptive defensive violence against them:

    http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/

    If I know that you are planning to attack me, I’ll do all I can to throw the first punch.

    Read More
  27. Twinkie says:

    You know, I remember when illegal aliens were afraid and ashamed to “come out of the shadows.” Now it’s just brazen, public lecturing against citizens and legal immigrants (you know, those who followed the law). This is some chutzpah.

    Is this Bizzaro-USA? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World)

    Read More
  28. Bill P says:

    Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

    One shouldn’t underestimate the trannies’ role in this violence. I’m not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the “trans women” and I bet you’ll get a hit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "One shouldn’t underestimate the trannies’ role in this violence. I’m not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the “trans women” and I bet you’ll get a hit."

    In the video of the riot there were a number of black-clad, bandanna-wearing people carrying make-shift shields emblazoned with the slogan "Trans Dykes".
    , @unpc downunder
    There probably weren't even many gays in these protests, let alone transsexuals. The left likes to exaggerate how diverse their protests are, so they can claim they represent a wide-range of people with measurable underdog status.

    Trannies are a particular left-liberal favourite because there are social science stats showing black and hispanic transsexuals come off very poorly in a number of social and economic measures (homelessness, AIDs rates, being victims of crime, high unemployment rates etc). They're the ultimate victim group, so the left is naturally going to talk up their role in the rainbow alliance.
  29. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “…“If they want a bloodbath to silence the demonstrators, let’s get it over with.”…”

    That seems to have been what, more-or-less accidentally, happened. Even with all the negative repercussions, it’s hard not to think that it dampened revolutionary ardor among the typical student (as did, even more, the end of the Vietnam war):

    May 15, 1969: “Bloody Thursday”. The Berkeley Peoples Park riots ended when the “blue meanies” (Alameda county sheriff’s deputies) got the go ahead to clear protesters using shotguns loaded with birdshot and rocksalt, which they did. Reagan then followed up by sending in the California National Guard to enforce a curfew of the area:

    “…James Rector, a student, was killed when shot by police… At least 128 Berkeley residents were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by police. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested…

    …Nevertheless, over the next few weeks National Guard troops broke up any assemblies of more than four persons who congregated for any purpose on the streets of Berkeley, day or night. In the early summer, troops deployed in downtown Berkeley surrounded several thousand protestors and bystanders, emptying business, restaurants, and retail outlets of their owners and customers, and arresting them en masse…”

    Kent State shootings, 4-May-1970:

    “…killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis…”

    Jackson State killings, 15-May-1970:

    “…killing two students and injuring twelve…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I was there at the time and I remember I was of two minds. On the one hand, there was an issue of excessive force (e.g., Kent State), but on the other hand, to be completely honest, most of the protestors were asking to have their asses kicked.

    In this case, the macho violent rhetoric of the left sounds pretty unbelievable compared to a real world where tough talk like that can get you severely beaten, at minimum. It kind of reminds me of the way people address each other on the internet; people don't self censor because there are no repercussions if you don't. However, the real world or "meat world" is not like that.

    I think the only reason the left can carry on with this "FU" endorsement of violence is that they haven't yet been brought up short; and they should be. They actually are acting like fascist bullies themselves, but they are only going to be able to do this so long as the police and the rest of the citizenry allow them to do so.
  30. I thought you were going to end with a joke. “An attempted filibuster of Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be Attorney General was broken today… so congressional Democrats have no alternative but to put on their ski masks and beat him up.”

    Read More
  31. Mr. Anon says:

    Can the Trump Administration at lest deport people like this guy Prieto and Jose Antonio Vargas? An example should be made of these and other illegal aliens who most definitely are not “in the shadows” and who presume to lecture us about what our immigration laws should be.

    They need to go back where they came from, and never come back.

    Read More
  32. Mr. Anon says:
    @Bill P

    Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.
     
    One shouldn't underestimate the trannies' role in this violence. I'm not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the "trans women" and I bet you'll get a hit.

    “One shouldn’t underestimate the trannies’ role in this violence. I’m not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the “trans women” and I bet you’ll get a hit.”

    In the video of the riot there were a number of black-clad, bandanna-wearing people carrying make-shift shields emblazoned with the slogan “Trans Dykes”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker

    "Trans Dykes"
     
    I would be more impressed by this in-your-face reclamation of a homophobic slur if the event they were trying to shut down wasn't part of something called The Dangerous Faggot Tour.
  33. Mr. Anon says:
    @Auntie Analogue
    Let us hope that AG Jeff Sessions will act instantly to deport Juan Prieto, Jose Antonio Vargas whom Enemedia-Pravda have had the gall to hire to lecture us Americans in our own country with his "That's Not Who We Are-ism," and all the other prominent shameless big mouth lawbreaking in-our-face-insulting illegal alien imminvaders who have no right be here on our sovereign soil. In short: expel the big fish so the little fish will have no Big Shot illegal alien to make rude noise for them when their turn to go home to their own family reunification comes up.

    We ordinary Americans have endured more than enough of foreigners breaking our laws, violating our sovereignty, and staying here illegally to wag their fingers in our faces - and the real blame and shame belong upon our arrogant traitorous elect who have allowed this insult to us to go on not just for as long as it has gone on, but who allowed it to begin in the first place.

    Well said. These people need to be brought out of the shadows……….and into the bright fluorescent light of an ICE holding-cell.

    And while the DoJ is at it, visa-procurement operations like the one run by Khyzer Khan need more scrutiny too. Maybe not him specifically (Gold Star Family!), just everybody with whom he has any dealings.

    Read More
  34. Antifa twitter has been proclaiming that Trump was elected because the Democrats failed to adopt antifa’s “No Platforming” tactic. Their thinking is apparently Republicans would never win elections if violent riots shutdown Republican gatherings. The reasoning is completely deluded and ridiculously immature, but this is apparently the vanguard of Leftist thinking in America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    Do the anarchists have an inner party? Street fighting has considerable appeal to young men, so they may well be using this tactic as a recruiting technique.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Clifford, when the RNC Convention was held in Cleveland, I actually feared for my childrens' safety. But Cleveland did a great job of hosting the event, and there was no violence that I recall. And it's not Republican gatherings that they fear, it's Republican voting that they seek to stop.
  35. Noah says:

    Note that alumna author Nisa Dang, who wrote “Check your privilege when speaking of protests” (not meant to be ironic, I think), is a field organizer for the Democrats in Nevada who “mobilized East Las Vegas and Henderson communities by registering over 400 voters.”

    In her article (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/), she writes: “As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.”

    It can’t be stated enough on this blog that pluralism and mass third world immigration are not compatible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It can’t be stated enough **on this blog that pluralism and mass third world immigration** are not compatible."

    Trust me, this False News Story** is an ongoing narrative for the Alt Right and their toadies.

  36. Dew says:

    Wasn’t Juan Prieto the same guy who organized a student “wall” to prevent white students from using the main entrance of the campus, forcing them to take alternative routes?

    I am going to assume he isn’t a STEM student.

    Read More
  37. OT: My nice, quiet Chicago neighborhood is abuzz with talk of the large mixed income housing building that is going to be built here. Any suggested reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods in Chicago or other cities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods"
     
    I would skip the reading--I think you already know the answer--and go directly to finding out who is sponsoring it and how to stop them.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Rockford, IL is trying to dump a complex into an otherwise middle class area.

    This isn't even a done deal, but violent crime is exploding out from Rockford's historically black West Side and people all over the city are now being awakened to the sound of magazine dumps within a mile of their homes...gang shootings at the local (nice) mall...car-jackings at the nice grocery stores...a new experience for most. It's educational to see a TV news report where the little plastic evidence markers in the street hit numbers like "43." Yes, forty-three spent shell casings. No, it's not a Quentin Tarantino movie set.

    Those who think any concentration at all, even two Section 8 houses on a street, won't become a gangrenous wound that kills off everything nearby are fooling themselves.

    BTW, where do we think those who lived in Cabrini Green went? Hint: mostly Rockford and Peoria.

  38. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Robert Reich gave a talk on automation at google recently. I’m guessing there’s approximately a 0.0001% chance that he mentioned immigration. So in addition to this false flag stuff, it seems like a lot of things are totally going over Robert Reich’s head.
    ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    C'mon that was a low blow. We're bigger than that.
    , @anonybana
    Small wonder it went over his head.
  39. During World War II there was a Soviet campaign that said essentially: “Every German must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a Russian gun.” In order to avoid moderation trouble, I’ll propose: “Every Juan Prieto should be made to feel that he lives ‘at the sufferance’ of ‘the white man’s justice.’”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I would add: ... "pending their permanent removal from U.S. territory."
  40. “The last argument of kings is cannons.”-His Majesty, King Louis XIV.
    “The last argument of shims is black blocs.”-They’s Majesties, Queen Pablo Gomez.

    Read More
  41. Anonym says:

    In essence the SJW are Jihadis. We already pay a Jizya in the form of federal funds going to universities, so it is a moot point before we get to the option of whether they kill or convert us.

    Read More
  42. I’m starting to understand how Chinamen felt back when European powers carved out those “concession” zones for themselves where their citizens were exempt from China’s laws.

    Read More
  43. G Pinfold says:
    @Anonymous
    Robert Reich gave a talk on automation at google recently. I'm guessing there's approximately a 0.0001% chance that he mentioned immigration. So in addition to this false flag stuff, it seems like a lot of things are totally going over Robert Reich's head.

    ;-)

    C’mon that was a low blow. We’re bigger than that.

    Read More
  44. Maj says:

    “Anti-fa = Anti-first amendment”

    Catapult the propaganda, everyone.

    Read More
  45. Boomstick says:

    California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) :

    … I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

    I say get on with it.

    Read More
  46. Thomas says:

    A lot of this would seem like terrific evidence, including an admission, of the sort of Conspiracy Against Rights federal crime that was previously discussed in the linked USA Today article from Glenn Reynolds. Sessions should definitely send the FBI in on this.

    Read More
  47. Boomstick says:
    @Clifford Brown
    Antifa twitter has been proclaiming that Trump was elected because the Democrats failed to adopt antifa's "No Platforming" tactic. Their thinking is apparently Republicans would never win elections if violent riots shutdown Republican gatherings. The reasoning is completely deluded and ridiculously immature, but this is apparently the vanguard of Leftist thinking in America.

    Do the anarchists have an inner party? Street fighting has considerable appeal to young men, so they may well be using this tactic as a recruiting technique.

    Read More
  48. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Irrational fear of thought: Skepsiphobia.

    Irrational fear of truth: Aletheaphobia

    Read More
  49. @Bill P

    Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.
     
    One shouldn't underestimate the trannies' role in this violence. I'm not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the "trans women" and I bet you'll get a hit.

    There probably weren’t even many gays in these protests, let alone transsexuals. The left likes to exaggerate how diverse their protests are, so they can claim they represent a wide-range of people with measurable underdog status.

    Trannies are a particular left-liberal favourite because there are social science stats showing black and hispanic transsexuals come off very poorly in a number of social and economic measures (homelessness, AIDs rates, being victims of crime, high unemployment rates etc). They’re the ultimate victim group, so the left is naturally going to talk up their role in the rainbow alliance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    unpc, I think Gays, with the exception of those beating the drum for transfolk, are now happy with their lot in life. No need to get your head busted protesting for illegal immigrants.
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    New definition of Hate: Truth, freedom, white identity, patriotism, national security, rule of law, voting for Trump, borders, end of hostility against Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    New definition of Hate: ..., end of hostility against Russia.
     
    The seeds of overreach are often sown early, and usually by seeing matters through the prism of a split divide rather than as a gradient.
    Pat Buchanan (notable to the readership of this site for being Irish, Catholic) correctly critiques Obama era foreign policy for rather inexplicably "getting in Russia's face" over the Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, eastern Europe.

    But note that he doesn't suggest that someone shouldn't be getting in the Russian's face. He only notes the oddity that this responsibility seems to fall uniquely on the United States, and our successive administrations seem to detect no impropriety in rising to such a questionable responsibility.

    There are two ways to show weakness to someone who is completely clear in his own mind that he is not your friend.

    One way is to agree to be someone else's muscle when you personally have no real skin in the game.
    That's Buchanan's point.
    Another way - worst than the first - is to respond to aggression, hostility and actions in violation of one's values by setting aside one's own "hostility", i.e.: welcoming hostility with warmth.
    There's a word that comes to mind for it in this part of the interwebs, starts with "cuhhh.."

    There is no US interest in 4 of 5 ways and places we get in the Russian's faces, or Putin's face as it were. It doesn't follow from this that warmth and friendship are on the table. It's the regrettable state of the world.
  51. @eah
    https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/828405567781625856

    What does it mean to say the HEB is “based on” control of territory?

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Here is a link to the original 'tweet', which seems to be missing from the comment thread here -- if you go there, you'll see a few comments -- here is one:

    You think in terms of immigration and the nation state.

    My take is this: humans evolved due to adaptation pressures present in local environments (here you can consider eg Northern Europe a 'local environment') -- this was only possible if territory was held.

    It would be interesting to read more about this.

    , @Neuday

    What does it mean to say the HEB is “based on” control of territory?
     
    Access to food and fertile punany.
  52. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/02/71_shot_in_new_orleans_in_janu.html

    Black Lives Matter reminds me of Great Leap Forward.

    Misconceived, they ended up doing the opposite of what they promised or demanded.

    Read More
  53. @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    DeVos was the scalp that they were looking for in order to say “See! We aren’t powerless and gelded!” and give the media a few weeks of headlines about Dem unity and Trump’s problems with his own party (based off a few cucked senators).

    That they couldn’t even manage that puts into light how weak the Democrat position is right now in actual -governing-. They can try to do end runs around Congress and the Executive by running to the Ninth Circuit and pushing the fiction that all legislation is made in a San Fran courthouse.

    However, given the strength and cunning of the Trump/Bannon/Miller triad, I imagine they know that the judiciary is going to have to be broken, and I can only imagine the circumstances where that counterpunch gets deployed will be to KO the judicial activism we will see utilized more and more as the Dems become more desperate. I imagine Trump will use a circumstance that allows him to go for the kill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    DeVos was the scalp
     
    They ought to be a little more careful of someone who has Erik Prince for a brother.
    , @guest
    The MSM is a joke and the Democrat party is weak. They still have the permanent government, including the judiciary, and the Deep State. For now. That's where most of the battles of the Trump administration will play out. Then there's the Cathedral and the Money Power (let's call that Moloch). Trump isn't strong enough to bring them down, I don't think. But look how worried they are in Berkeley. A little mockery from a flamingly queer immigrant has them fuming, and looking foolish.

    Berkeley ain't Harvard, and there's still the whole university/foundation/NGO/New World Order/multinational Eye of Soros/international banking conspiracy/whatever else you can think of to deal with. But they're losing ground, for once in my life.
  54. White hat says:

    I know ! Let all those who are being percecuted for their privilege all live together so they don’t influence anyone else and all can live in perfect harmony – no wait….

    Read More
  55. Twinkie says:
    @Jack Hanson
    DeVos was the scalp that they were looking for in order to say "See! We aren't powerless and gelded!" and give the media a few weeks of headlines about Dem unity and Trump's problems with his own party (based off a few cucked senators).

    That they couldn't even manage that puts into light how weak the Democrat position is right now in actual -governing-. They can try to do end runs around Congress and the Executive by running to the Ninth Circuit and pushing the fiction that all legislation is made in a San Fran courthouse.

    However, given the strength and cunning of the Trump/Bannon/Miller triad, I imagine they know that the judiciary is going to have to be broken, and I can only imagine the circumstances where that counterpunch gets deployed will be to KO the judicial activism we will see utilized more and more as the Dems become more desperate. I imagine Trump will use a circumstance that allows him to go for the kill.

    DeVos was the scalp

    They ought to be a little more careful of someone who has Erik Prince for a brother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Or has Erik Prince and his private military (rumored to now have an air force) in his corner.

    But these people aren't smart.
  56. eah says:
    @Opinionator
    What does it mean to say the HEB is "based on" control of territory?

    Here is a link to the original ‘tweet’, which seems to be missing from the comment thread here — if you go there, you’ll see a few comments — here is one:

    You think in terms of immigration and the nation state.

    My take is this: humans evolved due to adaptation pressures present in local environments (here you can consider eg Northern Europe a ‘local environment’) — this was only possible if territory was held.

    It would be interesting to read more about this.

    Read More
  57. bomag says:
    @Anonymous
    Have you seen Yvette Felarca, in the video below, who helped organize the Berkeley protest? She calls for more militants protests. She's very well-spoken and kind of scary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPrRLyFTzSU&ebc=ANyPxKpOYGk7zIbcVWiboUgKJ1pyRnsy1bSvASDglMBrv9GYLSkiOwozkJRXWhDa6qYqwWjPL5i9

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/radical-berkeley-anti-milo-protest-leader-no-regrets/

    Have you seen _____

    I’ve seen pictures of Stalin and Mao.

    She spouts the usual radical Left stuff: “all our violence is justified because it is all in self defense”; “we are under attack everywhere, all the time, by people using violence; thus we must get our guns into this knife fight… and by the way, not agreeing with us 100% means that you are using violence against us.”

    She assumes her side will prevail in the end, and thus be able to write history and whitewash little inconveniences like property damage and undue violence.

    This sums up so much:

    Felarca and the group she leads—the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary…

    Yeah, the fight for equality entails riots. And where oh where are the Hubert Humphrey types who assured us that affirmative action would be a brief program and yield positive dividends? Now it looks like the country gave its enemies a weapon.

    Read More
  58. @Calogero
    I wonder what Juan Prieto's SAT scores were.

    It’s a good question. On top of giving away a taxpayer-funded slot at their top state university to someone whose presence is illegal, the traitorous academy almost certainly lowered their admission thresholds to do it. So they are cheaters as well as traitors.

    Shouldn’t this be prosecutable?

    Read More
  59. @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    I noticed the same thing and I also think it is strange. Their policies may be insane, but the Dems normally have a diabolical cunning when it comes to political advantage, and DeVos is obviously a sideshow, so why expend so much political capital on it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Impotent rage. Seriously, what does the Secretary of Education even do? 99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level. The Democrats have too many things to be outraged about methinks.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Its easy to be diabolically cunning when your opponents are the Generals to your Globetrotters.

    In the Trump Administration, they are belatedly discovering they're playing the Larry Bird Celtics.
  60. @Greg Pandatshang
    OT: My nice, quiet Chicago neighborhood is abuzz with talk of the large mixed income housing building that is going to be built here. Any suggested reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods in Chicago or other cities?

    “reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods”

    I would skip the reading–I think you already know the answer–and go directly to finding out who is sponsoring it and how to stop them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Pandatshang
    Well, I'll say that I know it's not going to be good for the neighboring, but I'm not sure how bad it's going to be. CHA seems to have actually learned a lesson or two since the days when they built Cabrini Green and Henry Horner, so I don't anticipate that it will be a grievous, festering wound. Anyway, if I can dig up some straight dope on previous experiences with similar projects, it might help me convince my neighbors to fight this.
  61. slumber_j says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Robert Reich’s tall tale
     
    Bwahaha! Tall tale! Reich - at 3' 4" shorter than Sam Gamgee!

    Says here he’s 4′-11″. On the Internet I mean. But holy smokes: I can’t imagine I’ve ever met a non-dwarf man that short.

    Read More
  62. @Diversity Heretic
    During World War II there was a Soviet campaign that said essentially: "Every German must be made to feel that he lives under the muzzle of a Russian gun." In order to avoid moderation trouble, I'll propose: "Every Juan Prieto should be made to feel that he lives 'at the sufferance' of 'the white man's justice.'"

    I would add: … “pending their permanent removal from U.S. territory.”

    Read More
  63. @Mr. Anon
    "One shouldn’t underestimate the trannies’ role in this violence. I’m not being sarcastic, BTW.

    If you want to find a professor who was personally involved, investigate the “trans women” and I bet you’ll get a hit."

    In the video of the riot there were a number of black-clad, bandanna-wearing people carrying make-shift shields emblazoned with the slogan "Trans Dykes".

    “Trans Dykes”

    I would be more impressed by this in-your-face reclamation of a homophobic slur if the event they were trying to shut down wasn’t part of something called The Dangerous Faggot Tour.

    Read More
  64. @Steve Sailor

    re: “That would seem to undermine for Cabinet secretary Robert Reich’s tall tale that the masked blackshirts were Milo’s false flag agents provocateur.”

    I think you meant to use “former”.

    Read More
  65. @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    The Dem base of clueless urban liberals doesn’t really understand Sessions beyond “Racist”. DeVos, on the other hand, hits education which is one of their obsessions. Also she is a moron and it looked like the Dems had some chance, however remote, of stopping her confirmation so they are pissed.

    Read More
  66. @Almost Missouri
    I noticed the same thing and I also think it is strange. Their policies may be insane, but the Dems normally have a diabolical cunning when it comes to political advantage, and DeVos is obviously a sideshow, so why expend so much political capital on it?

    Impotent rage. Seriously, what does the Secretary of Education even do? 99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level. The Democrats have too many things to be outraged about methinks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Davenport
    99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level.

    No, it is not.

    Haven't you heard of Title IX and "Dear colleague" letters? Or "Common Core"?
  67. @Almost Missouri

    "reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods"
     
    I would skip the reading--I think you already know the answer--and go directly to finding out who is sponsoring it and how to stop them.

    Well, I’ll say that I know it’s not going to be good for the neighboring, but I’m not sure how bad it’s going to be. CHA seems to have actually learned a lesson or two since the days when they built Cabrini Green and Henry Horner, so I don’t anticipate that it will be a grievous, festering wound. Anyway, if I can dig up some straight dope on previous experiences with similar projects, it might help me convince my neighbors to fight this.

    Read More
  68. @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    27, My take is the Dems are very beholden to the NEA and affiliated teachers unions that provide the bulk of their funding and boots on the ground and most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left. They failed the teachers’ unions in their attempt to protect them from the sea change they will happen to DOE policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    >most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left

    Good point. Wasn't it Bob Dylan who once said "give me control of a nations children, gentlemen, and I care not who makes its laws"?

    >the sea change they will happen to DOE policies

    What sea change are you expecting?
    , @Boomstick
    Yes. Notice how the Walker protests in Wisconsin featured so many union teachers? Once the Walker reforms went through union contributions collapsed, along with political contributions.
  69. Neuday says:
    @Opinionator
    What does it mean to say the HEB is "based on" control of territory?

    What does it mean to say the HEB is “based on” control of territory?

    Access to food and fertile punany.

    Read More
  70. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “There is no law. Only judges.”

    It has been a problem that the legal system was, what, the second institution the leftists targeted for their march through the institutions.

    Read More
  71. @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    Teachers are a prime Democratic voting bloc. Attacking De Vos, is just virtue signalling. She also is a threat to common core which is the Trotskiyist attempt to indoctrinate the white kids with radical politics. Charter schools are just a side show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    She also is a threat to common core which is the Trotskiyist attempt to indoctrinate the white kids with radical politics.
     
    Among other things, some decent (there is some good in the math standards, for instance, though the implementation has been lacking). It's also pretty unpopular among actual teachers.
  72. @Ttjy
    I can't believe this is what this country has turned into.

    I saw a Republican congressman from NY state on Tucker talking about how we are a land of immigrants and a melting pot. He says we need all the migrant workers to pick apples in NY too. The orchard owners say no Americans will do the job even when they raised the pay. He didn't say how much to.

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know,

    The congressman sounded like an episode of School House Rock with his praise of the traditions of immigration. He says it's who we are and we have always been that way. Did he stop to think that the world has changed in the almost 400 years since the Pilgrims?

    If he likes tradition, maybe we should go back to slavery and women not voting too.

    Ttjy, I am a NYer who lives on the edge of NY’s apple country. The Cornell agricultural school has developed dwarf trees that take up less space per tree and produce the same yield per acre as the older trees that required a ladder to pick. The new trees, about six foot tall, are often tied back like grape vines because of their immense yield. I am sure that there is an apple picking machine in the near future which will replace most manual labor. Damaged fruit (bruising) is fine for cider, vinegar and apple sauce. The Concord grape crop, which is huge in WNY, is almost 100% mechanically picked. This Congressman is pandering for cross over votes.

    Read More
  73. @Anon
    New definition of Hate: Truth, freedom, white identity, patriotism, national security, rule of law, voting for Trump, borders, end of hostility against Russia.

    New definition of Hate: …, end of hostility against Russia.

    The seeds of overreach are often sown early, and usually by seeing matters through the prism of a split divide rather than as a gradient.
    Pat Buchanan (notable to the readership of this site for being Irish, Catholic) correctly critiques Obama era foreign policy for rather inexplicably “getting in Russia’s face” over the Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, eastern Europe.

    But note that he doesn’t suggest that someone shouldn’t be getting in the Russian’s face. He only notes the oddity that this responsibility seems to fall uniquely on the United States, and our successive administrations seem to detect no impropriety in rising to such a questionable responsibility.

    There are two ways to show weakness to someone who is completely clear in his own mind that he is not your friend.

    One way is to agree to be someone else’s muscle when you personally have no real skin in the game.
    That’s Buchanan’s point.
    Another way – worst than the first – is to respond to aggression, hostility and actions in violation of one’s values by setting aside one’s own “hostility”, i.e.: welcoming hostility with warmth.
    There’s a word that comes to mind for it in this part of the interwebs, starts with “cuhhh..”

    There is no US interest in 4 of 5 ways and places we get in the Russian’s faces, or Putin’s face as it were. It doesn’t follow from this that warmth and friendship are on the table. It’s the regrettable state of the world.

    Read More
  74. @Buffalo Joe
    27, My take is the Dems are very beholden to the NEA and affiliated teachers unions that provide the bulk of their funding and boots on the ground and most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left. They failed the teachers' unions in their attempt to protect them from the sea change they will happen to DOE policies.

    >most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left

    Good point. Wasn’t it Bob Dylan who once said “give me control of a nations children, gentlemen, and I care not who makes its laws”?

    >the sea change they will happen to DOE policies

    What sea change are you expecting?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Two Seven, I read that teachers' union are the biggest contributors to Dems nationwide and are their main source of volunteers. The Dems would never investigate these contributions as they are their favorite teat. Maybe the new DOE starts to follow money trails and make sure that contributions are legit. Maybe DOE starts to support teachers who don't want their dues to go to politicians. Those two things would be a sea change.
  75. @Escher
    I knew Berkeley was over the top leftist, but this is a whole new level of insanity. Violence against law abiding citizens and businesses is being justified by an illegal immigrant, as is suppressing free speech of people whose opinions do not match those of the prevailing orthodoxy.
    Mao's red guards would be proud.
    By the way, the comments on the Daily Californian are overwhelmingly against the author.

    Escher, Love the term…”replaceable property”, like the protestors were going to come back later and make everything right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    They mean that insurance will replace the damaged property.
    they say "let the angry destroy what they feel like destroying". It's the "decent human being" thing to do now. If you think that pocs/mxslims/trxns/commies should refrain from expressing xselves through violence, because violence can cause property damage,you've "failed at being a human".

    It's a common belief among european commies that people shouldn't care so much about property damaged by the commies and their pets. They've managed to make the French more or less indifferent to the 1000s of cars that get incinerated there every year and people who defend their home or property using violence are vilified in the media over there.

    Euroleftist norms have been very sucessfully displacing the traditional american Left norms.
  76. […] anarchists (sometimes called “antifas,” short for “anti-fascists”)? Well, Steve Sailer has compiled op-eds from the Daily Californian, Berkeley’s student newspaper, in … Here’s one from Juan Prieto, an illegal alien who said the rioters made him feel safe […]

    Read More
  77. @Clifford Brown
    Antifa twitter has been proclaiming that Trump was elected because the Democrats failed to adopt antifa's "No Platforming" tactic. Their thinking is apparently Republicans would never win elections if violent riots shutdown Republican gatherings. The reasoning is completely deluded and ridiculously immature, but this is apparently the vanguard of Leftist thinking in America.

    Clifford, when the RNC Convention was held in Cleveland, I actually feared for my childrens’ safety. But Cleveland did a great job of hosting the event, and there was no violence that I recall. And it’s not Republican gatherings that they fear, it’s Republican voting that they seek to stop.

    Read More
  78. @unpc downunder
    There probably weren't even many gays in these protests, let alone transsexuals. The left likes to exaggerate how diverse their protests are, so they can claim they represent a wide-range of people with measurable underdog status.

    Trannies are a particular left-liberal favourite because there are social science stats showing black and hispanic transsexuals come off very poorly in a number of social and economic measures (homelessness, AIDs rates, being victims of crime, high unemployment rates etc). They're the ultimate victim group, so the left is naturally going to talk up their role in the rainbow alliance.

    unpc, I think Gays, with the exception of those beating the drum for transfolk, are now happy with their lot in life. No need to get your head busted protesting for illegal immigrants.

    Read More
  79. SPMoore8 says:
    @anonymous
    "...“If they want a bloodbath to silence the demonstrators, let’s get it over with.”..."

    That seems to have been what, more-or-less accidentally, happened. Even with all the negative repercussions, it's hard not to think that it dampened revolutionary ardor among the typical student (as did, even more, the end of the Vietnam war):


    May 15, 1969: "Bloody Thursday". The Berkeley Peoples Park riots ended when the "blue meanies" (Alameda county sheriff's deputies) got the go ahead to clear protesters using shotguns loaded with birdshot and rocksalt, which they did. Reagan then followed up by sending in the California National Guard to enforce a curfew of the area:


    "...James Rector, a student, was killed when shot by police... At least 128 Berkeley residents were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by police. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested...

    ...Nevertheless, over the next few weeks National Guard troops broke up any assemblies of more than four persons who congregated for any purpose on the streets of Berkeley, day or night. In the early summer, troops deployed in downtown Berkeley surrounded several thousand protestors and bystanders, emptying business, restaurants, and retail outlets of their owners and customers, and arresting them en masse..."

     

    Kent State shootings, 4-May-1970:


    "...killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis..."

     

    Jackson State killings, 15-May-1970:


    "...killing two students and injuring twelve..."

     

    I was there at the time and I remember I was of two minds. On the one hand, there was an issue of excessive force (e.g., Kent State), but on the other hand, to be completely honest, most of the protestors were asking to have their asses kicked.

    In this case, the macho violent rhetoric of the left sounds pretty unbelievable compared to a real world where tough talk like that can get you severely beaten, at minimum. It kind of reminds me of the way people address each other on the internet; people don’t self censor because there are no repercussions if you don’t. However, the real world or “meat world” is not like that.

    I think the only reason the left can carry on with this “FU” endorsement of violence is that they haven’t yet been brought up short; and they should be. They actually are acting like fascist bullies themselves, but they are only going to be able to do this so long as the police and the rest of the citizenry allow them to do so.

    Read More
  80. Truth says:

    Hey Gents; this young man conflates the word “racIST” with “pianIST” and “scientIST”; do you know what the means?

    You can have pride in what you are!

    Read More
  81. NOTA says:
    @Escher
    I knew Berkeley was over the top leftist, but this is a whole new level of insanity. Violence against law abiding citizens and businesses is being justified by an illegal immigrant, as is suppressing free speech of people whose opinions do not match those of the prevailing orthodoxy.
    Mao's red guards would be proud.
    By the way, the comments on the Daily Californian are overwhelmingly against the author.

    Principled defense of free speech is extremely rare–most people defend free speech of their own ideas but don’t really support it for ideas they disagree with, and oppose it for ideas they find offensive. Someday the censorious SJWs and the censorious religious people and the censorious HR/corporate people will all work together to make sure we have “responsible, properly controlled” speech. We’ll be a lot poorer for that, but the only way to avoid that outcome is for a lot of people to care about free speech even when it’s from people they despise.

    Read More
  82. Svigor says:

    Arrest, jail, and deport this criminal.

    Incidentally, I always thought Jeff Sessions looked like something out of Deliverance. He’s a good pick for scaring the illegals.

    If James Carville didn’t exist…

    Read More
  83. J1234 says:

    My guess is that the Berkeley rioters wanted attendees of the Milo speech to go through a “tunnel of oppression.”

    Read More
  84. ogunsiron says:
    @Anonymous
    Have you seen Yvette Felarca, in the video below, who helped organize the Berkeley protest? She calls for more militants protests. She's very well-spoken and kind of scary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPrRLyFTzSU&ebc=ANyPxKpOYGk7zIbcVWiboUgKJ1pyRnsy1bSvASDglMBrv9GYLSkiOwozkJRXWhDa6qYqwWjPL5i9

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/radical-berkeley-anti-milo-protest-leader-no-regrets/

    I believe Yvette is the woman who led the antifas who attacked (and got utterly destroyed by) a legal demonstration in Sacramento by the traditional youth workers’ party (admitedly, real nazis but besides the point). Antifas outright assaulted the tiny group of demonstrators but things didn’t go too well for bolsheviks: several antifas got stabbed! The leader of a violent gang is thus free to show her face on tv. She’s got backup.

    Read More
  85. First, no protest is nonviolent. You are laboring under the assumption that protesters are coming into a peaceful atmosphere and disrupting it through chanting, song and broken windows. This, of course, is a misrepresentation of our society and its treatment of the marginalized.

    Paging Mahatma Ghandi; paging Martin Luther King; you’re forms of protest are sooo 20th century. Looks like some clueless, historically ignorant millennial is living down to the stereotype.

    Here’s her FB page:

    https://www.facebook.com/jesuisnisa

    Appears I was right: clueless.

    Read More
  86. Corvinus says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    To those who hate Yiannopoulos and the alt-right
     
    Tell me again, who are the haters?

    “Tell me again, who are the haters?”

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I haven't followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence? If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes.
    , @dc.sunsets
    moral equivalence?

    You're a lost cause.
    , @res
    Corvinus, I have to give you a compliment. Once upon a time I accused you of only using the Motte and bailey fallacy and the Straw man fallacy. You have since demonstrated mastery of the False equivalence fallacy as well. Well done.

    For those who would like to more fully appreciate Corvinus's expertise, some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
    , @Daniel Chieh
    M. Yiannopoulos has never advocated violence, not overtly, not implicitly, and not in any way. He's always claimed that the values of conservatism will prevail due to its innate truth and has always challenged people to debate him with words, not fists.
  87. Corvinus says:
    @Noah
    Note that alumna author Nisa Dang, who wrote “Check your privilege when speaking of protests” (not meant to be ironic, I think), is a field organizer for the Democrats in Nevada who "mobilized East Las Vegas and Henderson communities by registering over 400 voters."

    In her article (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/check-privilege-speaking-protests/), she writes: “As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.”

    It can’t be stated enough on this blog that pluralism and mass third world immigration are not compatible.

    “It can’t be stated enough **on this blog that pluralism and mass third world immigration** are not compatible.”

    Trust me, this False News Story** is an ongoing narrative for the Alt Right and their toadies.

    Read More
  88. ogunsiron says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Escher, Love the term..."replaceable property", like the protestors were going to come back later and make everything right.

    They mean that insurance will replace the damaged property.
    they say “let the angry destroy what they feel like destroying”. It’s the “decent human being” thing to do now. If you think that pocs/mxslims/trxns/commies should refrain from expressing xselves through violence, because violence can cause property damage,you’ve “failed at being a human”.

    It’s a common belief among european commies that people shouldn’t care so much about property damaged by the commies and their pets. They’ve managed to make the French more or less indifferent to the 1000s of cars that get incinerated there every year and people who defend their home or property using violence are vilified in the media over there.

    Euroleftist norms have been very sucessfully displacing the traditional american Left norms.

    Read More
  89. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    How come ISIS never attacked Israel?

    How come Antifa(or Procuck) never protests AIPAC rallies?

    Read More
  90. @SPMoore8
    In other words: If someone wants to exercise the right of free speech, and no peaceful measures have been successful to block that exercise of free speech, violence is a legitimate alternative.

    How many people actually believe that?

    Needless to say this is the direct opposite of what Free Speech at Berkeley meant 50 years ago.

    Back in the day, there was a poster of Governor Reagan, six gun drawn, and wearing a cowboy hat, with the notorious caption, "If they want a bloodbath to silence the demonstrators, let's get it over with." Substitute "speakers" for "demonstrators" and it would be fitting for the walls of any of these "Antifas."

    “Needless to say this is the direct opposite of what Free Speech at Berkeley meant 50 years ago.”

    What was it about 50 years ago? On-campus political activism, right? Nobody then or now thought it was going to be anything right-of-center.

    Violence was a central part of the far left’s tactics and it still is. When you hate both God and man, there’s no reason to refrain from destruction, in fact, it becomes your preferred mode.

    Read More
  91. SPMoore8 says:
    @Corvinus
    "Tell me again, who are the haters?"

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.

    I haven’t followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence? If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Don't bother. Cory baby is addicted to the dopamine surge her Voicing of Moral Superiority yields whenever the middle can be found between right and wrong.

    Cory still thinks "moderation" is by definition superior to Right or Left, no matter what Rightists do or Leftists do.

    If Adam preferred yogurt and Needra preferred excrement, Cory would deem the mixture more virtuous than either pure ingredient.
    , @Corvinus
    "I haven’t followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence?"

    Not that I'm aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence? Of course, if someone sucker punches an Alt-Rightest, they have every liberty to defend themselves.

    "If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes."

    The point is he is, as you stated, a revolutionary who is linked to members of the Alt Right who advocate a race war and oppose the mixing of the races.

  92. @Corvinus
    "Tell me again, who are the haters?"

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.

    moral equivalence?

    You’re a lost cause.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You’re a lost cause."

    Hey, I'm not the one advocating that low IQ types regardless of race ought to be "culled from the herd".

  93. @SPMoore8
    I haven't followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence? If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes.

    Don’t bother. Cory baby is addicted to the dopamine surge her Voicing of Moral Superiority yields whenever the middle can be found between right and wrong.

    Cory still thinks “moderation” is by definition superior to Right or Left, no matter what Rightists do or Leftists do.

    If Adam preferred yogurt and Needra preferred excrement, Cory would deem the mixture more virtuous than either pure ingredient.

    Read More
  94. The clown was worried about being a target?

    He should wait around a little longer. He will be.

    Read More
  95. @Twinkie

    DeVos was the scalp
     
    They ought to be a little more careful of someone who has Erik Prince for a brother.

    Or has Erik Prince and his private military (rumored to now have an air force) in his corner.

    But these people aren’t smart.

    Read More
  96. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "Tell me again, who are the haters?"

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.

    Corvinus, I have to give you a compliment. Once upon a time I accused you of only using the Motte and bailey fallacy and the Straw man fallacy. You have since demonstrated mastery of the False equivalence fallacy as well. Well done.

    For those who would like to more fully appreciate Corvinus’s expertise, some links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Motte and Bailey is interesting. Thanks.
    , @Corvinus
    Exactly, allegations. Why don't you demonstrate specifically how I am employing these rhetorically devices rather than merely listing them.
  97. @Almost Missouri
    I noticed the same thing and I also think it is strange. Their policies may be insane, but the Dems normally have a diabolical cunning when it comes to political advantage, and DeVos is obviously a sideshow, so why expend so much political capital on it?

    Its easy to be diabolically cunning when your opponents are the Generals to your Globetrotters.

    In the Trump Administration, they are belatedly discovering they’re playing the Larry Bird Celtics.

    Read More
  98. MBlanc46 says:
    @SPMoore8
    In other words: If someone wants to exercise the right of free speech, and no peaceful measures have been successful to block that exercise of free speech, violence is a legitimate alternative.

    How many people actually believe that?

    Needless to say this is the direct opposite of what Free Speech at Berkeley meant 50 years ago.

    Back in the day, there was a poster of Governor Reagan, six gun drawn, and wearing a cowboy hat, with the notorious caption, "If they want a bloodbath to silence the demonstrators, let's get it over with." Substitute "speakers" for "demonstrators" and it would be fitting for the walls of any of these "Antifas."

    I’m pretty sure that’s not what “free speech” meant at Berkeley in the 1960s. Sixties radicals were just as interested in silencing those who gainsaid Leftist dogma as are our contemporary Leftist radicals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Berkeley professor Arthur Jensen had to secretly move to a remote exurb to avoid violent retribution for his December 1969 Harvard Education Review meta-analysis on IQ and race.
    , @SPMoore8
    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed. Many of the faculty were opposed to this because they felt is was "politicizing" the university and interfering with teaching, etc. The Free Speech movement won, and there was certainly a plurality of POV's offered when I was around there, from the mid-60's and again in the late '70's.

    It's certainly true that the Vietnam War (basically) led to a lot of confrontations but I cannot recall violence being argued as an appropriate tactic simply for exercising free speech, except among a very small group of radicals, the kind that later enlisted in the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen. And even those types of people were less interested in rioting to prevent free speech than they were in committing spectacular crimes against the "power structure."

    I remember attending public lectures back in those days that would typically be interrupted by some earnest catcalls or mini-demonstrations. The people doing that would be shut down by the rest of the audience and then we would continue. I don't recall public lectures being literally shut down before they began by violence, vandalism or arson, along with the shrill insistence that such tactics were necessary. I think that started in the late '80's, or at least, it seemed to become more common at that time.

    This is definitely '60's redux. The difference is that the notion that opposing speech can and should be shut down by violence because it constitutes hate speech is much more widely spread today; back then, you'd only hear it from a couple of people who were selling Little Red Books on the fringe of People's Park. But also, back then, the War was a clear explanation for the radicalization of students. There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.
  99. Olorin says:
    @AndrewR
    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Heckuva job, Donny.

    Oh, Little Marco. How lonely and dull your days must be of late.

    Read More
  100. res says:

    So in order to prevent potential violence they must engage in preemptive real violence. Nice. One might make a Hitler/Poland analogy here, but that would be too Godwinesque for me.

    But at least they are stupid enough to self accuse and undermine the arguments of their smarter and more dishonest enablers (e.g. Reich):

    We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.

    Read More
  101. Corvinus says:
    @SPMoore8
    I haven't followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence? If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes.

    “I haven’t followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence?”

    Not that I’m aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence? Of course, if someone sucker punches an Alt-Rightest, they have every liberty to defend themselves.

    “If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes.”

    The point is he is, as you stated, a revolutionary who is linked to members of the Alt Right who advocate a race war and oppose the mixing of the races.

    Read More
    • Agree: Spmoore8
    • Replies: @Bill P

    Not that I’m aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence?
     
    Why should he have to? If he doesn't advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it's reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right? I don't think this should be one of those things where you're guilty until proving yourself innocent.

    Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn't really alt-right so much as he's a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays.

    The reason for the hysteria against him is precisely his violation of taboos. By speaking at universities, it is as though he were showing up in churches in medieval Europe and mocking the idea of the immaculate conception.

    Like true zealots, the assorted "antifa" are defending their faith with violent attacks - in public and on camera - yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he's somehow equally to blame. Come on...
    , @Spmoore8
    I meant to agree with the guy who replied to you. You may play the guilt by association game, but it's still a game.
  102. lavoisier says: • Website

    I am glad you have finished this article with your opinion, Steve. It can often be read between the lines, but I like it when you are out in the open with what you think.

    My thought: Trump should find a way to get these people like Prieto arrested immediately and deported promptly. There should be no time for judicial review. Arrest them and send them back to their home countries before a leftist judge has had time to get his latte in the morning at Starbucks. Make an example of this prick who despises us and treats us like the politically correct shackled cowards we have become.

    The left has clearly declared war on America and the rule of law.

    It is long past time for America, and Americans, to declare war on the despicable left and send them to the hell they would create for all of us with their stupidity and their hatred.

    I have spent most of my life trying to avoid a fight, but like it or not, this fight has started.

    Time to choose sides.

    Read More
  103. guest says:
    @Jack Hanson
    DeVos was the scalp that they were looking for in order to say "See! We aren't powerless and gelded!" and give the media a few weeks of headlines about Dem unity and Trump's problems with his own party (based off a few cucked senators).

    That they couldn't even manage that puts into light how weak the Democrat position is right now in actual -governing-. They can try to do end runs around Congress and the Executive by running to the Ninth Circuit and pushing the fiction that all legislation is made in a San Fran courthouse.

    However, given the strength and cunning of the Trump/Bannon/Miller triad, I imagine they know that the judiciary is going to have to be broken, and I can only imagine the circumstances where that counterpunch gets deployed will be to KO the judicial activism we will see utilized more and more as the Dems become more desperate. I imagine Trump will use a circumstance that allows him to go for the kill.

    The MSM is a joke and the Democrat party is weak. They still have the permanent government, including the judiciary, and the Deep State. For now. That’s where most of the battles of the Trump administration will play out. Then there’s the Cathedral and the Money Power (let’s call that Moloch). Trump isn’t strong enough to bring them down, I don’t think. But look how worried they are in Berkeley. A little mockery from a flamingly queer immigrant has them fuming, and looking foolish.

    Berkeley ain’t Harvard, and there’s still the whole university/foundation/NGO/New World Order/multinational Eye of Soros/international banking conspiracy/whatever else you can think of to deal with. But they’re losing ground, for once in my life.

    Read More
  104. guest says:
    @27 year old
    From what I saw of the media outrage and grandstanding and facebook kvetching related to each, the dems seemed to be way more pissed about DeVos than about Sessions. That seems weird to me. Anybody else notice this or am I wrong? Theories?

    I think it was a matter of going after the softest target to get some momentum on your side. Like how the Patriots didn’t start hucking the ball down the field at the beginning of the second half of the superbowl. They made adjustments, cobbled drives together, went on fourth down and tried an onside kick. Slapping down what to them is a non-starter–Betsy Devos? In the cabinet? Of the *United States!* What’s next, Bimbo Palin in the department of energy?–was supposed to get the ball rolling.

    Now, it’s “We can’t even do that right, woe is me.”

    Read More
  105. guest says:
    @Ttjy
    I can't believe this is what this country has turned into.

    I saw a Republican congressman from NY state on Tucker talking about how we are a land of immigrants and a melting pot. He says we need all the migrant workers to pick apples in NY too. The orchard owners say no Americans will do the job even when they raised the pay. He didn't say how much to.

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know,

    The congressman sounded like an episode of School House Rock with his praise of the traditions of immigration. He says it's who we are and we have always been that way. Did he stop to think that the world has changed in the almost 400 years since the Pilgrims?

    If he likes tradition, maybe we should go back to slavery and women not voting too.

    Nevermind tradition, because this was not Who We Were 400 years ago, and if he doesn’t know that no one should bother listening to him.

    Read More
  106. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    These people are rabid. A bunch of rabidals.

    PC and Pop Culture turn off their minds and turn on their hysteria. They are afraid of reason and thought. They love the sound of their own barking and growling.

    They are logophobes. They fear logic and thought.

    In the end, people prefer FEELING RIGHT than being right. Of course, people want to be both Feel Right and Be Right. But once their emotions become invested with a certain view of the world, their feeling of rightness becomes invested with that perception of the world. Rightness leads to righteousness, and righteousness makes them feel good and morally superior. So, righteousness comes to trump rightness. If new findings were to challenge the rightness of their views, it means they will also threaten their sense of righteousness. Righteousness is so crucial to their self-image that they prefer righteousness by clinging to disproved truths than new-and-improved rightness that requires them to let go of their righteousness (associated with what was once thought to be true but has since been proven false).

    And this is a problem not only of the ‘left’ but of ‘right’, not only of religious folks but secular ideological folks. This is why the story of Galileo isn’t so much about science but pride and righteousness (and thus can be applied universally, indeed even against scientists who prefer dogmatism over facts). The Church wasn’t opposed to astronomy per se. What it found as unacceptable was this discovery that totally overturned the much vaunted pride and expertise of the Church.

    People want to feel justified, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a good thing and the basis of moral sense. It’s like what the old timer says in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY: “I want to enter my house justified.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=sk81WCRMP8sC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22I+want+to+enter+my+house+justified.%22+ride+the+high+country&source=bl&ots=T56Tg0FdwI&sig=zU75wUlo24661fcxKH-7rOhonsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz7qXeoYHSAhUB7oMKHapNB6oQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22I%20want%20to%20enter%20my%20house%20justified.%22%20ride%20the%20high%20country&f=false

    But once a person’s sense of justified-ness becomes associated with a certain worldview, it is difficult to let it go because the loss of that worldview also means loss of one’s sense of justified-ness. (For older people, it means the thing that lent meaning to their whole life had been false. Their entire life’s struggle or crusade was based on a myth. For young people, who are still emotionally immature and easily made fanatical, it means their pure youthful passion is based on BS, thus a joke.)

    This is why we can easily change our minds about things that don’t affect our righteousness. Suppose we long believed that hyenas are closely related to dogs. But then, we read an article that says hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs. Okay, we say, and we go with that, the new fact. I mean who cares.

    But suppose we not only believed that hyenas are closely related to dogs but staked our reputation and pride on that ‘fact’. We went around acting like we know so much about zoology and lectured about hyenas being dog-like, etc. Now, if we were to come upon an article that says otherwise, we would find our emotions resisting this fact. It ‘offends’ and threatens our sense of pride and justified-ness.

    [MORE]

    It’s like an argument I had long ago on bears. The kid was very knowledgeable and said grizzlies and brown bears are separate species of bears, and I said they are of the same species. The reason why it became somewhat emotional is because I considered myself a bear expert, and he thought he know so much about biology and zoology. So, our sense of righteousness was at stake. I told him to go to the library and check the facts and then admit he’s wrong. So, a week passes, a month passes, but he says nothing about it. He dared not bring it up because I WAS RIGHT!!! Sumfabitch was too shamefaced to admit it, and I had to press him on it before he finally admitted I was right. So, what could have been a dry objective discussion turned into a subjective one as well cuz our pride-of-knowledge was at stake.

    Academia is supposed to be the mandarin and brahmin class. It is supposed to be the bastion of truth and facts. Over the yrs, it’s been taken over by PC-meisters who are convinced that they are totally right, and the debate is over, so either repeat after me or AH SHADDAP!! Is it any wonder that Berkeley is not a SHUT UP ZONE? It’s run by Shutters.
    This PC is not some dry academic assertion but impassioned and righteous declaration of expertise and truth. They know, they know so much, and we better obey because they know and we don’t. What we know must follow what they know because they are so justified with higher knowledge.

    Anti-PC voices that dare speak the truth or deviate from the narrative or talk back(instead of just shutting up and then repeating their mantras) threaten their ‘sanctuary cities’ of PC.

    PC is so untrue that it needs to be protected from the truth(that ruthlessly attacks BS). Truth shows no mercy when it encounters falsehood. It is fitting that both PC and illegal aliens are united in Berkeley. Both have no legitimacy under the truth or the law. So, they violently strike out against any truth or law that might seep in to prick the bubble. (Shia Laboof says “You will not divide us”, but it is the Truth that has a unifying effect on all those who embrace falsehood. They all feel threatened by it. Trump is actually a unifier of his enemies since, being so full of lies, they can only find unity in their shared fear of truth and sanity.)
    And it’s not just about professional security or economic advantage(of being an illegal in the US, which sure beats being back home in a poorer nation). It’s about addiction to righteousness. Because PC has made certain people — prog academics, globo media types, illegals, non-whites, and white cucks — feel so justified and righteous in their worldview, they fear any countervailing view that may take away their security blanket of sanctimony and moral narcissism. After all, if progs and non-whites were ever to face reality, the consequences wouldn’t only be necessity of adjustment in their factual or intellectual worldview. The shocks would be emotional and ‘spiritual’ since the very thing that makes them feel SO JUSTIFIED, PROUD, AND RIGHTEOUS would be taken from them.
    This was why it was so difficult for Marxist true-believers to let go of their ideology. It wasn’t simply about changing their minds about some dry academic theory but about losing the very thing that lent moral and spiritual meaning to their lives and made them feel justified and righteous and morally superior to those who didn’t agree.

    Some ideas have more moralistic content than others.
    Argument about taxes among capitalists has some moral argument but not much. Suppose one capitalist leans more to libertarianism while the other leans more to social-democracy. So, both believe in the usefulness of capitalism, but the libertarian believes it is less moral for the big government to impose high taxes(and violate individualism) whereas the social-democrat believes it is more moral for the state to adjust tax rates so that rich pay more for the collective good. They may disagree, but it’s not a life-and-death struggle. They are not gonna want to kill each other over it.

    But Marxism came with high moral content. It condemned capitalism as greedy, exploitative, and unjust. And it portrayed the proletariat as a noble historical force of honest toiling workers. So, anyone who came under its spell felt intensely righteous and justified, like Jews with the Covenant and Commandments. Also, because Marxism claimed to be ‘scientific’ and intellectual, it instilled its believers with a sense of pride. They KNEW and UNDERSTOOD what the dummies and ignorami didn’t.

    Marxism and Communism lasted as long as they did because of this sense of righteousness. One might say communism didn’t last long — it rose and fell in the 20th century — , but considering its failure as an economic idea, it is surprising that it lasted as long as it did. By facts and reason, communism shouldn’t have lasted 10 yrs. But it made its adherents feel so righteous and proud to be associated with a great moral and scientific system of ideas. They clung to it because of its emotional content.

    So, even when Marxism finally died, its ‘moralistic’ content of righteousness and pride remained and latched onto new causes like homomania and global-warming-scare and cult of ‘inclusion’. What is called ‘cultural marxism’ is really ‘emotional marxism’, a need to feel righteous, justified, and proud. Such emotions feel threatened by anything that undermines their worldview. This is why the Progs see Free Speech as a threat and ‘hate speech’. Truth hates their bubble. PC is bubble as bible.

    Read More
  107. JSR says:

    National Lawyers Guild? Isn’t that an old Commie front organization? Those geezers are still around? I suppose they are like vampires, chewing on necks to raise up new generations.

    Read More
  108. Bill P says:
    @Corvinus
    "I haven’t followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence?"

    Not that I'm aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence? Of course, if someone sucker punches an Alt-Rightest, they have every liberty to defend themselves.

    "If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes."

    The point is he is, as you stated, a revolutionary who is linked to members of the Alt Right who advocate a race war and oppose the mixing of the races.

    Not that I’m aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence?

    Why should he have to? If he doesn’t advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it’s reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right? I don’t think this should be one of those things where you’re guilty until proving yourself innocent.

    Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn’t really alt-right so much as he’s a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays.

    The reason for the hysteria against him is precisely his violation of taboos. By speaking at universities, it is as though he were showing up in churches in medieval Europe and mocking the idea of the immaculate conception.

    Like true zealots, the assorted “antifa” are defending their faith with violent attacks – in public and on camera – yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he’s somehow equally to blame. Come on…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FPD72
    The Immaculate Conception was not an official doctrine of the Church of Rome until 1858, hardly medieval. You might have it confused with the Virgin Birth of Christ.
    , @Corvinus
    "Why should he have to?"

    To be consistent given his public stature. Why is he noticeable silent on this matter when it comes to those "race realists" or "white nationalists" who insist that there ought to be war between blacks and whites?

    "If he doesn’t advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it’s reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right?"

    Are you going to employ that same standard by those on the left?

    "Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn’t really alt-right so much as he’s a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays."

    His writings and speeches clearly demonstrate that he is Alt-Right.

    "Like true zealots, the assorted “antifa” are defending their faith with violent attacks – in public and on camera..."

    As would ANY fringe group!

    "yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he’s somehow equally to blame."

    Milo is not to blame for inciting those leftists from engaging in violence; they are squarely responsible for their actions. He is to "blame" for stating he opposes violence by leftists, but not coming out and holding the same standard to those on the Alt-Right.
  109. Spmoore8 says:
    @Corvinus
    "I haven’t followed this very closely, but has Milo ever actually advocated or excused violence?"

    Not that I'm aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence? Of course, if someone sucker punches an Alt-Rightest, they have every liberty to defend themselves.

    "If he has not, it is simply wrong to cluster him with these other revolutionary wannabes."

    The point is he is, as you stated, a revolutionary who is linked to members of the Alt Right who advocate a race war and oppose the mixing of the races.

    I meant to agree with the guy who replied to you. You may play the guilt by association game, but it’s still a game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You may play the guilt by association game, but it’s still a game."

    It's not a game, it's a reality. If Milo is truly opposed to violent agitators who quell free speech through their direct actions or verbally specify for it to occur, then he has a duty given his position as a prominent leader on the Alt Right to call out his own brethren.

    Any and all people regardless of their political affiliation, if they take measures during a protest that leads to the destruction of property and/or physical harm of someone ought to be arrested, charged, and put through the court system.

    That does NOT mean that the entire, or most, or the majority of that group is therefore a terrorist, or an anti-American, or whatever label or meme their opponents are able to come up with. But that's the day and age in which we live in.
  110. Jimi says:
    @Calogero
    I wonder what Juan Prieto's SAT scores were.

    Juan Prieto transferred in from community college and is majoring in English and Spanish. He will probably graduate to immigrant, ethnic activism or social services.

    Doing the job Americans won’t do.

    Read More
  111. FPD72 says:
    @Bill P

    Not that I’m aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence?
     
    Why should he have to? If he doesn't advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it's reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right? I don't think this should be one of those things where you're guilty until proving yourself innocent.

    Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn't really alt-right so much as he's a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays.

    The reason for the hysteria against him is precisely his violation of taboos. By speaking at universities, it is as though he were showing up in churches in medieval Europe and mocking the idea of the immaculate conception.

    Like true zealots, the assorted "antifa" are defending their faith with violent attacks - in public and on camera - yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he's somehow equally to blame. Come on...

    The Immaculate Conception was not an official doctrine of the Church of Rome until 1858, hardly medieval. You might have it confused with the Virgin Birth of Christ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P
    Clearly I conflated the two. But you get the point.
  112. Bill P says:
    @FPD72
    The Immaculate Conception was not an official doctrine of the Church of Rome until 1858, hardly medieval. You might have it confused with the Virgin Birth of Christ.

    Clearly I conflated the two. But you get the point.

    Read More
  113. @Greg Pandatshang
    OT: My nice, quiet Chicago neighborhood is abuzz with talk of the large mixed income housing building that is going to be built here. Any suggested reading on how mixed income housing has affected similar nice, quiet neighborhoods in Chicago or other cities?

    Rockford, IL is trying to dump a complex into an otherwise middle class area.

    This isn’t even a done deal, but violent crime is exploding out from Rockford’s historically black West Side and people all over the city are now being awakened to the sound of magazine dumps within a mile of their homes…gang shootings at the local (nice) mall…car-jackings at the nice grocery stores…a new experience for most. It’s educational to see a TV news report where the little plastic evidence markers in the street hit numbers like “43.” Yes, forty-three spent shell casings. No, it’s not a Quentin Tarantino movie set.

    Those who think any concentration at all, even two Section 8 houses on a street, won’t become a gangrenous wound that kills off everything nearby are fooling themselves.

    BTW, where do we think those who lived in Cabrini Green went? Hint: mostly Rockford and Peoria.

    Read More
  114. A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event.

    Actually, to their credit, the Berkeley FSM veterans did not call for the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ speech: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/01/17/free-speech-movement-veterans-historians-comment-milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech-controversy/

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    That was a very nice article and points to what I had in mind in my previous remarks. However, I have to say that the article itself was way overwritten, and it's hard for me to believe that a bunch of grownups who are eligible for social security would write like very earnest and bright twelve year olds.
  115. zyezek says:

    These universities are way overdue for Protestant Reformation-type reform.

    If Trump is smart, he’ll go after the key institutional centers of the Left in this country, instead of individual SJWs or obnoxious ideologues. Those would be:
    1) Education, both public schools and the universities
    2) Government bureaucrats
    3) The visual media (TV & movies).

    Notice that those 3 pretty much account for all the Left-wing idiocy in this country. Busting the education racket means they’d no longer control what most of America’s kids are taught to think & believe. That would make it far harder for them to keep using our schools as brainwashing centers & full-employment program for ‘activists’ and phony ‘scholars’. Busting or even just checking the power of the visual media would forces them to openly duel with competing info, propaganda & narratives in the public square. That effort is already underway, with early returns indicating they’re not particularly bright or persuasive when actually facing genuine competition. And finally, reforming the gov’t internally to limit the bureaucracy would ensure they had fewer insider friends to push & implement their ideology (in the form of de facto laws) regardless of elections.

    Draining these institutionalized, publicly subsidized swamps would effectively destroy the SJWs’ social ‘habitats’, so to speak, meaning we’d eventually have a lot fewer of them. The schools are the biggest & most important of the 3, which is exactly why you get more fight over a Betsy DeVos than a Jeff Sessions. They are where this ideology is developed & refined into all its poisonous flavors, to later be spread via the mass media & gov’t to the larger society. They are also the source of the top leaders & many of the foot soldiers. Reforming the universities would mean you don’t HAVE ‘black bloc’ groups anymore, because the liberal jihadis will no longer have their madrassas. Its long overdue, and hopefully will being shortly.

    Read More
  116. @Anon
    These people are rabid. A bunch of rabidals.

    PC and Pop Culture turn off their minds and turn on their hysteria. They are afraid of reason and thought. They love the sound of their own barking and growling.

    They are logophobes. They fear logic and thought.

    In the end, people prefer FEELING RIGHT than being right. Of course, people want to be both Feel Right and Be Right. But once their emotions become invested with a certain view of the world, their feeling of rightness becomes invested with that perception of the world. Rightness leads to righteousness, and righteousness makes them feel good and morally superior. So, righteousness comes to trump rightness. If new findings were to challenge the rightness of their views, it means they will also threaten their sense of righteousness. Righteousness is so crucial to their self-image that they prefer righteousness by clinging to disproved truths than new-and-improved rightness that requires them to let go of their righteousness (associated with what was once thought to be true but has since been proven false).

    And this is a problem not only of the 'left' but of 'right', not only of religious folks but secular ideological folks. This is why the story of Galileo isn't so much about science but pride and righteousness (and thus can be applied universally, indeed even against scientists who prefer dogmatism over facts). The Church wasn't opposed to astronomy per se. What it found as unacceptable was this discovery that totally overturned the much vaunted pride and expertise of the Church.

    People want to feel justified, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a good thing and the basis of moral sense. It's like what the old timer says in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY: "I want to enter my house justified."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=sk81WCRMP8sC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22I+want+to+enter+my+house+justified.%22+ride+the+high+country&source=bl&ots=T56Tg0FdwI&sig=zU75wUlo24661fcxKH-7rOhonsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz7qXeoYHSAhUB7oMKHapNB6oQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22I%20want%20to%20enter%20my%20house%20justified.%22%20ride%20the%20high%20country&f=false

    But once a person's sense of justified-ness becomes associated with a certain worldview, it is difficult to let it go because the loss of that worldview also means loss of one's sense of justified-ness. (For older people, it means the thing that lent meaning to their whole life had been false. Their entire life's struggle or crusade was based on a myth. For young people, who are still emotionally immature and easily made fanatical, it means their pure youthful passion is based on BS, thus a joke.)

    This is why we can easily change our minds about things that don't affect our righteousness. Suppose we long believed that hyenas are closely related to dogs. But then, we read an article that says hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs. Okay, we say, and we go with that, the new fact. I mean who cares.

    But suppose we not only believed that hyenas are closely related to dogs but staked our reputation and pride on that 'fact'. We went around acting like we know so much about zoology and lectured about hyenas being dog-like, etc. Now, if we were to come upon an article that says otherwise, we would find our emotions resisting this fact. It 'offends' and threatens our sense of pride and justified-ness.



    It's like an argument I had long ago on bears. The kid was very knowledgeable and said grizzlies and brown bears are separate species of bears, and I said they are of the same species. The reason why it became somewhat emotional is because I considered myself a bear expert, and he thought he know so much about biology and zoology. So, our sense of righteousness was at stake. I told him to go to the library and check the facts and then admit he's wrong. So, a week passes, a month passes, but he says nothing about it. He dared not bring it up because I WAS RIGHT!!! Sumfabitch was too shamefaced to admit it, and I had to press him on it before he finally admitted I was right. So, what could have been a dry objective discussion turned into a subjective one as well cuz our pride-of-knowledge was at stake.

    Academia is supposed to be the mandarin and brahmin class. It is supposed to be the bastion of truth and facts. Over the yrs, it's been taken over by PC-meisters who are convinced that they are totally right, and the debate is over, so either repeat after me or AH SHADDAP!! Is it any wonder that Berkeley is not a SHUT UP ZONE? It's run by Shutters.
    This PC is not some dry academic assertion but impassioned and righteous declaration of expertise and truth. They know, they know so much, and we better obey because they know and we don't. What we know must follow what they know because they are so justified with higher knowledge.

    Anti-PC voices that dare speak the truth or deviate from the narrative or talk back(instead of just shutting up and then repeating their mantras) threaten their 'sanctuary cities' of PC.

    PC is so untrue that it needs to be protected from the truth(that ruthlessly attacks BS). Truth shows no mercy when it encounters falsehood. It is fitting that both PC and illegal aliens are united in Berkeley. Both have no legitimacy under the truth or the law. So, they violently strike out against any truth or law that might seep in to prick the bubble. (Shia Laboof says "You will not divide us", but it is the Truth that has a unifying effect on all those who embrace falsehood. They all feel threatened by it. Trump is actually a unifier of his enemies since, being so full of lies, they can only find unity in their shared fear of truth and sanity.)
    And it's not just about professional security or economic advantage(of being an illegal in the US, which sure beats being back home in a poorer nation). It's about addiction to righteousness. Because PC has made certain people --- prog academics, globo media types, illegals, non-whites, and white cucks --- feel so justified and righteous in their worldview, they fear any countervailing view that may take away their security blanket of sanctimony and moral narcissism. After all, if progs and non-whites were ever to face reality, the consequences wouldn't only be necessity of adjustment in their factual or intellectual worldview. The shocks would be emotional and 'spiritual' since the very thing that makes them feel SO JUSTIFIED, PROUD, AND RIGHTEOUS would be taken from them.
    This was why it was so difficult for Marxist true-believers to let go of their ideology. It wasn't simply about changing their minds about some dry academic theory but about losing the very thing that lent moral and spiritual meaning to their lives and made them feel justified and righteous and morally superior to those who didn't agree.

    Some ideas have more moralistic content than others.
    Argument about taxes among capitalists has some moral argument but not much. Suppose one capitalist leans more to libertarianism while the other leans more to social-democracy. So, both believe in the usefulness of capitalism, but the libertarian believes it is less moral for the big government to impose high taxes(and violate individualism) whereas the social-democrat believes it is more moral for the state to adjust tax rates so that rich pay more for the collective good. They may disagree, but it's not a life-and-death struggle. They are not gonna want to kill each other over it.

    But Marxism came with high moral content. It condemned capitalism as greedy, exploitative, and unjust. And it portrayed the proletariat as a noble historical force of honest toiling workers. So, anyone who came under its spell felt intensely righteous and justified, like Jews with the Covenant and Commandments. Also, because Marxism claimed to be 'scientific' and intellectual, it instilled its believers with a sense of pride. They KNEW and UNDERSTOOD what the dummies and ignorami didn't.

    Marxism and Communism lasted as long as they did because of this sense of righteousness. One might say communism didn't last long --- it rose and fell in the 20th century --- , but considering its failure as an economic idea, it is surprising that it lasted as long as it did. By facts and reason, communism shouldn't have lasted 10 yrs. But it made its adherents feel so righteous and proud to be associated with a great moral and scientific system of ideas. They clung to it because of its emotional content.

    So, even when Marxism finally died, its 'moralistic' content of righteousness and pride remained and latched onto new causes like homomania and global-warming-scare and cult of 'inclusion'. What is called 'cultural marxism' is really 'emotional marxism', a need to feel righteous, justified, and proud. Such emotions feel threatened by anything that undermines their worldview. This is why the Progs see Free Speech as a threat and 'hate speech'. Truth hates their bubble. PC is bubble as bible.

    I always get hyenas and jackals confused.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    There was a bobcat sighted recently not far from me in the Peoples' Republic.
    , @Anon
    Jackal is Damien's ma.

    https://youtu.be/XgRwQl5i_5o?t=1m18s
  117. @Steve Sailer
    I always get hyenas and jackals confused.

    There was a bobcat sighted recently not far from me in the Peoples’ Republic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Cool.

    Bobcats supposedly live in the Hollywood Hills south of me, but I've never seen one.

  118. @MBlanc46
    I'm pretty sure that's not what "free speech" meant at Berkeley in the 1960s. Sixties radicals were just as interested in silencing those who gainsaid Leftist dogma as are our contemporary Leftist radicals.

    Berkeley professor Arthur Jensen had to secretly move to a remote exurb to avoid violent retribution for his December 1969 Harvard Education Review meta-analysis on IQ and race.

    Read More
  119. @Jim Don Bob
    There was a bobcat sighted recently not far from me in the Peoples' Republic.

    Cool.

    Bobcats supposedly live in the Hollywood Hills south of me, but I’ve never seen one.

    Read More
  120. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I think, in a way, we’ve arrived at a crossroads where we must make hard choices.

    In a way, the progs have a point.

    Free speech is easiest to accommodate when it is mostly harmless and inconsequential.

    Suppose there is a very stable and strong society, and there are anarchists, nazis, satan worshipers, communists, punks, and bunch of other radicals.

    So, it doesn’t matter what they say. Society can indulge in free speech since it’s all just noise and hum.

    In a stable capitalist democracy, who cares what a communist says on top of a soap box? Some will look at him with amusement or curiosity, and that’s about it.

    But suppose the social order is weak and frayed, and suppose 25% of the people have strong communist sympathies. Then, free speech for communists can be very dangerous.

    This is why Latin American nations were far more ruthless with commies than the US was. There was little chance of commies taking power in the USA. But esp after Castro’s victory in Cuba, many Latin American nations were shi**ing bricks cuz lots of poor folks might go with Marxist guerrillas. US understood this and supported the juntas.

    So, free speech is most tolerable when it is most inconsequential.

    A stable democracy will tolerate lots of different speech — nazi talk to nation of islam to anarchism — since all such talk won’t amount to plate of beans. Most Americans will not go Nazi, and most blacks will not join Nation of Islam and start a race war.

    [MORE]

    (Indeed, the failure to counter the increasingly potent Speech of Jewish Power was why America changed so fast and furiously. Jews know their power multiplied exponentially through unopposed speech and narrative, and this shift in power had momentous impact on the US. So, they naturally don’t want any side to gain credence and power through similar instrument of speech.)

    Granted, even a stable social order may clamp down on free speech if the elites have been taken over by radical ideology. We saw this in Canada. There was no chance of Nazis coming to power in Canada. So, why did PC become so crazy over there in such a safe and stable society? Because globo-radicals gained power in the institutions. And radicals must push their agenda into every nook and cranny of society and purge any idea that is at odds with their own. Also, in order for radicals(who wormed into elite centers of power) to push through their

    agenda(designed to fundamentally change society), they must preempt any possible opposition with a dominant narrative. Canada was once almost all-white, and many Canadians wanted to keep it that way. Under such circumstances, call for massive immigration would have been opposed by people and politicians. So, the radicals used power of media and academia to condition as many people as possible — esp the young ones — that there are Nazis all over and that Canada is ‘racist’ cuz it’s too white, and it mus have Diversity and if you oppose it, you’re a ‘nazi’. Once hearts and minds were turned that way, the globo-radicals could push for mass immigration without much of an opposition. Many Canadians will have been won over to Diversity Cult and even those who still opposed it didn’t dare speak out against it since doing so might be deemed ‘racist’ and ‘nazi’.

    In the US, neo-nazis and KKK became utterly inconsequential. There had to be invented as they could hardly be found. The freakout at Oberlin over KKK sighting for example. But most of these ‘hate’ sightings turned out to be ‘hate hoaxes’ or hate-hallucinations of psykkkedelia on the lookout for Hateful Dead.
    Meanwhile, the prog radicals took over all institutions and even publicity departments of industries, and they began to infuse everything with PC. So, even Archie’s Comics had a story where Archie takes a bullet for a homo senator. Superhero comic books are now about homos and blacks. And this became the norm.

    BUT, the rise of Trump and the emergence of Alt Right changed everything. Before Trump and AR, it didn’t matter which party won. The Hegemonic Narrative remained constant. The most ‘right-wing” this country could go was ‘compassionate conservatism’ or cuckservatism of Jeb Bush and McCain praising illegals.
    The most ‘right-wing’ that US intellectuals could go was libertarianism and rooting for US wars overseas.
    It was totally taboo to speak of white interests or even to suggest it implicitly. Or to talk of Jewish Power and the race factor in society.
    Whites had to keep their heads down and never be uppity. Never look massuh in the eye. Whites had to accept that the Narrative that they suck and must repent.

    But Trump won the presidency by deriding all that. Even his disavowal of David Duke was perfunctory than on-his-knees-begging-forgiveness.
    Also, if neo-nazis and KKK had been useful to PC(just as Westboro church was) in caricaturing the White Right as a bunch of lunatics and morons, the Alt Right didn’t conform to Proglob stereotypes of ‘white rightists’. Alt Right challenged & changed the media image of the ‘far right. It offered honest critique of the Real Power America.

    THIS is a real threat to PC. In a way, real neo-nazism and KKK rhetoric was never threatening to PC since it was self-negating. Daytime Talk Shows used to invite neo-nazi and KKK morons and have them talk garbage and make total fools of themselves.
    But Alt Right didn’t fall into that trap. And unlike David Duke who, at one time, was with the Klan, most AR guys have no such baggage.

    So, Alt Right has a real chance of making a difference in contributing to the Narrative. It is the most potently anti-PC force out there.

    And this is why Free Speech is now so dangerous. It’s not because of the Neo-Nazis and KKK but the Truth that is emerging due to internet as the alternative forum of ideas, a sanctuary of truth against PC floodwater.

    Free Speech has become consequential once again. Neo-Nazis and KKK trash-talk only validated PC by confirming all the negative proggy stereotypes of the far-right movement. But Alt Right won’t play by that script, and the PC forces don’t know what to do.

    Though Trump isn’t AR(by any stretch of imagination), his brazen attitude is an inspiration to all whites to stop groveling and keeping their heads bowed. And once whites begin to think freely and of their own interests, many of them will naturally come to agree with AR views.

    And that means a real challenge to the PC consensus that has defined America for so long.

    So, ‘Punch a Nazi’ really means “slander those who tell the truth as a nazi”. All the easier to attack them and silence them.
    But we should welcome ‘nazi punching’ because it will be even more ‘red-pilling’.
    It’s been said a ‘conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged’.
    Then, an Alt Rightist will be a conservative who has been punched.

    Anyway, most Rightist talk was, more or less, tolerated until now because it was either inane & spineless or crazy & demented. Neocons were all about Israel, Cucks were all about ‘compassionate conservatism’, and Neo-Nazis & KKK were about deranged stupidity. Neocons and Cucks served the globalist-establishment and the Neo-Nazis & KKK were too cartoonish to take seriously.

    But some on the Alt Right are the vanguard of a fresh, honest, courageous, and new ways to look at history and society. And Alt Right boils down the Power as essentially Jewish & Homo GLOB and PC-programmed prog-dummies.

    So, the other side is panicking and declared Fatwa to punch more ‘nazis’, which means any Trump supporter. Most of these Trumpers are moderate conservatives, but once they or their friends or family members are punched, they will join the Alt Right.

    ‘Red-pilling’ is mild stuff compared to ‘Nazi-punching’. That will, for sure, turn people to the AR.

    Read More
  121. @AndrewR
    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Heckuva job, Donny.

    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Please explain why the travel ban is utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

    Might some of your peepul be banned?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The Travel Ban was stupid because it was easy to see that it would be suspended. By being suspended, it has allowed in all the visa holders who were supposed to be "surprised" by the order, including all of the "bad people" among them.

    I'm not saying the Travel Ban was a bad thing; anyone reading the media should have known that something like this would happen if Trump was elected. Which is why they should have come before he was inaugurated.

    However, I predict that something like the original Travel Ban will be in effect in a month or so. But it won't be permanent.
    , @AndrewR
    You've got me figured out, kafir.
  122. @Unladen Swallow
    Impotent rage. Seriously, what does the Secretary of Education even do? 99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level. The Democrats have too many things to be outraged about methinks.

    99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level.

    No, it is not.

    Haven’t you heard of Title IX and “Dear colleague” letters? Or “Common Core”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Not really, Common Core is being driven primarily by the Gates Foundation, and the states' department of education. Dear Colleague letters are an example of the Department of Education riding the coattails of the Department of Justice, which won't be a problem in the current administration, if it was only coming from the Department of Education no one would have cared. The Justice Department under Obama was constantly threatening not only schools, but police departments as well. Title IX is used primarily to push "gender equity" at college and university sports teams, not local public primary and secondary schools. Male athletes are still far more numerous up through the high school level than female athletes are, even today forty plus years after Title IX was implemented in higher ed.
  123. anonybana says:
    @Anonymous
    Robert Reich gave a talk on automation at google recently. I'm guessing there's approximately a 0.0001% chance that he mentioned immigration. So in addition to this false flag stuff, it seems like a lot of things are totally going over Robert Reich's head.

    ;-)

    Small wonder it went over his head.

    Read More
  124. SPMoore8 says:
    @MBlanc46
    I'm pretty sure that's not what "free speech" meant at Berkeley in the 1960s. Sixties radicals were just as interested in silencing those who gainsaid Leftist dogma as are our contemporary Leftist radicals.

    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed. Many of the faculty were opposed to this because they felt is was “politicizing” the university and interfering with teaching, etc. The Free Speech movement won, and there was certainly a plurality of POV’s offered when I was around there, from the mid-60′s and again in the late ’70′s.

    It’s certainly true that the Vietnam War (basically) led to a lot of confrontations but I cannot recall violence being argued as an appropriate tactic simply for exercising free speech, except among a very small group of radicals, the kind that later enlisted in the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen. And even those types of people were less interested in rioting to prevent free speech than they were in committing spectacular crimes against the “power structure.”

    I remember attending public lectures back in those days that would typically be interrupted by some earnest catcalls or mini-demonstrations. The people doing that would be shut down by the rest of the audience and then we would continue. I don’t recall public lectures being literally shut down before they began by violence, vandalism or arson, along with the shrill insistence that such tactics were necessary. I think that started in the late ’80′s, or at least, it seemed to become more common at that time.

    This is definitely ’60′s redux. The difference is that the notion that opposing speech can and should be shut down by violence because it constitutes hate speech is much more widely spread today; back then, you’d only hear it from a couple of people who were selling Little Red Books on the fringe of People’s Park. But also, back then, the War was a clear explanation for the radicalization of students. There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.
     
    Massive mismatch the the resulting status anxiety. Young people are being literally sold into debt slavery.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    College students were shouting down speakers in the early 1970s. In 1973, Nobel Prize winner and race realist William B. Shockley was prevented from speaking at several colleges to which he had been invited by disruptive students.
    However, in those days the universities sometimes disciplined the students responsible:

    Yale Suspends 11 for Halting Debate
    For Alleged Role in Shouting Down Shockley

    By JONATHAN L. WEKER, May 13, 1974
    Yale University suspended 11 students Friday for their alleged roles in leading disruption of an April 15 debate between controversial Stanford University professor William B. Shockley and William Rusher, publisher of the National Review.

    The Yale College Executive Committee suspended the 11 students for next fall's semester, and said that they would be placed on probation upon their return in January 1975 for the spring semester. The committee said, however, that the students could apply in August for readmission for the fall term.
     

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/13/yale-suspends-11-for-halting-debate/
    , @ben tillman

    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed.
     
    No, the Free Speech Movement in 1964 was based on the premise that the Left's voice should be heard on campus.
  125. SPMoore8 says:
    @David Davenport
    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Please explain why the travel ban is utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

    Might some of your peepul be banned?

    The Travel Ban was stupid because it was easy to see that it would be suspended. By being suspended, it has allowed in all the visa holders who were supposed to be “surprised” by the order, including all of the “bad people” among them.

    I’m not saying the Travel Ban was a bad thing; anyone reading the media should have known that something like this would happen if Trump was elected. Which is why they should have come before he was inaugurated.

    However, I predict that something like the original Travel Ban will be in effect in a month or so. But it won’t be permanent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    No, it wasn't. The President was totally within his rights and the fact that a federal judge thinks national immigration policy is made in his courtroom is laffo.

    Unless your strategy is "never fight at all" which wouldn't surprise me.
  126. SPMoore8 says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event.
     
    Actually, to their credit, the Berkeley FSM veterans did not call for the cancellation of Yiannopoulos' speech: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/01/17/free-speech-movement-veterans-historians-comment-milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech-controversy/

    That was a very nice article and points to what I had in mind in my previous remarks. However, I have to say that the article itself was way overwritten, and it’s hard for me to believe that a bunch of grownups who are eligible for social security would write like very earnest and bright twelve year olds.

    Read More
  127. Truth says:
    @res
    Corvinus, I have to give you a compliment. Once upon a time I accused you of only using the Motte and bailey fallacy and the Straw man fallacy. You have since demonstrated mastery of the False equivalence fallacy as well. Well done.

    For those who would like to more fully appreciate Corvinus's expertise, some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

    Motte and Bailey is interesting. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    You're welcome. It's amazing how often Motte and Bailey shows up once you start looking for it.
  128. @SPMoore8
    The Travel Ban was stupid because it was easy to see that it would be suspended. By being suspended, it has allowed in all the visa holders who were supposed to be "surprised" by the order, including all of the "bad people" among them.

    I'm not saying the Travel Ban was a bad thing; anyone reading the media should have known that something like this would happen if Trump was elected. Which is why they should have come before he was inaugurated.

    However, I predict that something like the original Travel Ban will be in effect in a month or so. But it won't be permanent.

    No, it wasn’t. The President was totally within his rights and the fact that a federal judge thinks national immigration policy is made in his courtroom is laffo.

    Unless your strategy is “never fight at all” which wouldn’t surprise me.

    Read More
  129. res says:
    @Truth
    Motte and Bailey is interesting. Thanks.

    You’re welcome. It’s amazing how often Motte and Bailey shows up once you start looking for it.

    Read More
  130. @SPMoore8
    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed. Many of the faculty were opposed to this because they felt is was "politicizing" the university and interfering with teaching, etc. The Free Speech movement won, and there was certainly a plurality of POV's offered when I was around there, from the mid-60's and again in the late '70's.

    It's certainly true that the Vietnam War (basically) led to a lot of confrontations but I cannot recall violence being argued as an appropriate tactic simply for exercising free speech, except among a very small group of radicals, the kind that later enlisted in the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen. And even those types of people were less interested in rioting to prevent free speech than they were in committing spectacular crimes against the "power structure."

    I remember attending public lectures back in those days that would typically be interrupted by some earnest catcalls or mini-demonstrations. The people doing that would be shut down by the rest of the audience and then we would continue. I don't recall public lectures being literally shut down before they began by violence, vandalism or arson, along with the shrill insistence that such tactics were necessary. I think that started in the late '80's, or at least, it seemed to become more common at that time.

    This is definitely '60's redux. The difference is that the notion that opposing speech can and should be shut down by violence because it constitutes hate speech is much more widely spread today; back then, you'd only hear it from a couple of people who were selling Little Red Books on the fringe of People's Park. But also, back then, the War was a clear explanation for the radicalization of students. There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.

    There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.

    Massive mismatch the the resulting status anxiety. Young people are being literally sold into debt slavery.

    Read More
  131. @David Davenport
    99 plus percent of education policy is made locally or at the state level.

    No, it is not.

    Haven't you heard of Title IX and "Dear colleague" letters? Or "Common Core"?

    Not really, Common Core is being driven primarily by the Gates Foundation, and the states’ department of education. Dear Colleague letters are an example of the Department of Education riding the coattails of the Department of Justice, which won’t be a problem in the current administration, if it was only coming from the Department of Education no one would have cared. The Justice Department under Obama was constantly threatening not only schools, but police departments as well. Title IX is used primarily to push “gender equity” at college and university sports teams, not local public primary and secondary schools. Male athletes are still far more numerous up through the high school level than female athletes are, even today forty plus years after Title IX was implemented in higher ed.

    Read More
  132. @SPMoore8
    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed. Many of the faculty were opposed to this because they felt is was "politicizing" the university and interfering with teaching, etc. The Free Speech movement won, and there was certainly a plurality of POV's offered when I was around there, from the mid-60's and again in the late '70's.

    It's certainly true that the Vietnam War (basically) led to a lot of confrontations but I cannot recall violence being argued as an appropriate tactic simply for exercising free speech, except among a very small group of radicals, the kind that later enlisted in the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen. And even those types of people were less interested in rioting to prevent free speech than they were in committing spectacular crimes against the "power structure."

    I remember attending public lectures back in those days that would typically be interrupted by some earnest catcalls or mini-demonstrations. The people doing that would be shut down by the rest of the audience and then we would continue. I don't recall public lectures being literally shut down before they began by violence, vandalism or arson, along with the shrill insistence that such tactics were necessary. I think that started in the late '80's, or at least, it seemed to become more common at that time.

    This is definitely '60's redux. The difference is that the notion that opposing speech can and should be shut down by violence because it constitutes hate speech is much more widely spread today; back then, you'd only hear it from a couple of people who were selling Little Red Books on the fringe of People's Park. But also, back then, the War was a clear explanation for the radicalization of students. There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.

    College students were shouting down speakers in the early 1970s. In 1973, Nobel Prize winner and race realist William B. Shockley was prevented from speaking at several colleges to which he had been invited by disruptive students.
    However, in those days the universities sometimes disciplined the students responsible:

    Yale Suspends 11 for Halting Debate
    For Alleged Role in Shouting Down Shockley

    By JONATHAN L. WEKER, May 13, 1974
    Yale University suspended 11 students Friday for their alleged roles in leading disruption of an April 15 debate between controversial Stanford University professor William B. Shockley and William Rusher, publisher of the National Review.

    The Yale College Executive Committee suspended the 11 students for next fall’s semester, and said that they would be placed on probation upon their return in January 1975 for the spring semester. The committee said, however, that the students could apply in August for readmission for the fall term.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/13/yale-suspends-11-for-halting-debate/

    Read More
  133. @Laugh Track
    The problem with "hate speech", which apparently requires rioting and vandalism to suppress, is that it is defined in such a way that only "oppressors" can engage in it. Any of the "oppressed" minorities cannot emit "hate speech" because their anger and rage are justified by their "oppression". So, "hate speech" is an inaccurate term, as hate is universal as a human emotion, but only the angry (or, in Milo's case, snarky) speech of white Americans (or Europeans) is defined as "hate speech".

    I, once upon a time, was an ACLU member because I was impressed that they defended the rights of American Nazis (a minute sect, needless to say) to march in Skokie, Illinois. I don't think they made that mistake twice. I've never heard of the ACLU defending anyone's rights since then who wasn't on the left or one of the left's designated victim clients.

    I imagine that the logic behind Robt. Reich's supposition that the Black Bloc rioters were a false flag operation from Trumpist ranks, is because it is transparently obvious to most anyone with a decent share of brain cells that the end result of rioting anarchists trying to suppress free speech is to discredit the left. Surely the left couldn't be so stupid?

    Wrong.

    I, once upon a time, was an ACLU member because I was impressed that they defended the rights of American Nazis (a minute sect, needless to say) to march in Skokie, Illinois. I don’t think they made that mistake twice.

    They weren’t Nazis, and it wasn’t a mistake. It was a public-relations stunt that paid incredible dividends, as you can attest.

    Read More
  134. @SPMoore8
    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed. Many of the faculty were opposed to this because they felt is was "politicizing" the university and interfering with teaching, etc. The Free Speech movement won, and there was certainly a plurality of POV's offered when I was around there, from the mid-60's and again in the late '70's.

    It's certainly true that the Vietnam War (basically) led to a lot of confrontations but I cannot recall violence being argued as an appropriate tactic simply for exercising free speech, except among a very small group of radicals, the kind that later enlisted in the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weathermen. And even those types of people were less interested in rioting to prevent free speech than they were in committing spectacular crimes against the "power structure."

    I remember attending public lectures back in those days that would typically be interrupted by some earnest catcalls or mini-demonstrations. The people doing that would be shut down by the rest of the audience and then we would continue. I don't recall public lectures being literally shut down before they began by violence, vandalism or arson, along with the shrill insistence that such tactics were necessary. I think that started in the late '80's, or at least, it seemed to become more common at that time.

    This is definitely '60's redux. The difference is that the notion that opposing speech can and should be shut down by violence because it constitutes hate speech is much more widely spread today; back then, you'd only hear it from a couple of people who were selling Little Red Books on the fringe of People's Park. But also, back then, the War was a clear explanation for the radicalization of students. There is nothing going on today that easily explains it.

    The original Free Speech movement in 1964 was based on the premise that political issues could and should be discussed on campus, not that only one POV would be discussed.

    No, the Free Speech Movement in 1964 was based on the premise that the Left’s voice should be heard on campus.

    Read More
  135. @Ttjy
    I can't believe this is what this country has turned into.

    I saw a Republican congressman from NY state on Tucker talking about how we are a land of immigrants and a melting pot. He says we need all the migrant workers to pick apples in NY too. The orchard owners say no Americans will do the job even when they raised the pay. He didn't say how much to.

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know,

    The congressman sounded like an episode of School House Rock with his praise of the traditions of immigration. He says it's who we are and we have always been that way. Did he stop to think that the world has changed in the almost 400 years since the Pilgrims?

    If he likes tradition, maybe we should go back to slavery and women not voting too.

    A lot of Republicans and conservatives are just as bad as liberals on immigration as we know. . . .

    If you’re bad on immigration, you aren’t a conservative.

    Read More
  136. Boomstick says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    27, My take is the Dems are very beholden to the NEA and affiliated teachers unions that provide the bulk of their funding and boots on the ground and most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left. They failed the teachers' unions in their attempt to protect them from the sea change they will happen to DOE policies.

    Yes. Notice how the Walker protests in Wisconsin featured so many union teachers? Once the Walker reforms went through union contributions collapsed, along with political contributions.

    Read More
  137. […] stance you must hold in order to remain a member in good standing. A party which recruits activists who actively encourage the violent suppression of speech inimical to their warped […]

    Read More
  138. @Prof. Woland
    Teachers are a prime Democratic voting bloc. Attacking De Vos, is just virtue signalling. She also is a threat to common core which is the Trotskiyist attempt to indoctrinate the white kids with radical politics. Charter schools are just a side show.

    She also is a threat to common core which is the Trotskiyist attempt to indoctrinate the white kids with radical politics.

    Among other things, some decent (there is some good in the math standards, for instance, though the implementation has been lacking). It’s also pretty unpopular among actual teachers.

    Read More
  139. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets
    moral equivalence?

    You're a lost cause.

    “You’re a lost cause.”

    Hey, I’m not the one advocating that low IQ types regardless of race ought to be “culled from the herd”.

    Read More
  140. Corvinus says:
    @res
    Corvinus, I have to give you a compliment. Once upon a time I accused you of only using the Motte and bailey fallacy and the Straw man fallacy. You have since demonstrated mastery of the False equivalence fallacy as well. Well done.

    For those who would like to more fully appreciate Corvinus's expertise, some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

    Exactly, allegations. Why don’t you demonstrate specifically how I am employing these rhetorically devices rather than merely listing them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Been there. Done that. Not really worth the time, but since I did it for the others before I'll help you out again this time.

    The complete text of what you wrote in comment 93 which I replied to (funny how that works, perhaps you should check there first to see if that was the example) was the example of false equivalence. To save you the trouble of finding it again here is what you wrote in comment 93: "Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade."

    Well, we can start with different people, different causes, and different methods. I think others (e.g. SPMoore8 in a response to comment 93) have covered more differences in earlier comments.

    See, not only compliments, but assistance with the simplest of problems. Aren't I a nice guy...

    P.S. And as a free bonus, the phrase you were looking for was "rhetorical devices". But "fallacies" is more accurate IMHO.
  141. Corvinus says:
    @Spmoore8
    I meant to agree with the guy who replied to you. You may play the guilt by association game, but it's still a game.

    “You may play the guilt by association game, but it’s still a game.”

    It’s not a game, it’s a reality. If Milo is truly opposed to violent agitators who quell free speech through their direct actions or verbally specify for it to occur, then he has a duty given his position as a prominent leader on the Alt Right to call out his own brethren.

    Any and all people regardless of their political affiliation, if they take measures during a protest that leads to the destruction of property and/or physical harm of someone ought to be arrested, charged, and put through the court system.

    That does NOT mean that the entire, or most, or the majority of that group is therefore a terrorist, or an anti-American, or whatever label or meme their opponents are able to come up with. But that’s the day and age in which we live in.

    Read More
  142. Corvinus says:
    @Bill P

    Not that I’m aware of. But has he come out of the closet and stated that he opposes those on the Alt Right who advocate premeditated violence?
     
    Why should he have to? If he doesn't advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it's reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right? I don't think this should be one of those things where you're guilty until proving yourself innocent.

    Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn't really alt-right so much as he's a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays.

    The reason for the hysteria against him is precisely his violation of taboos. By speaking at universities, it is as though he were showing up in churches in medieval Europe and mocking the idea of the immaculate conception.

    Like true zealots, the assorted "antifa" are defending their faith with violent attacks - in public and on camera - yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he's somehow equally to blame. Come on...

    “Why should he have to?”

    To be consistent given his public stature. Why is he noticeable silent on this matter when it comes to those “race realists” or “white nationalists” who insist that there ought to be war between blacks and whites?

    “If he doesn’t advocate or engage in unlawful violence then it’s reasonable to assume that he opposes it, right?”

    Are you going to employ that same standard by those on the left?

    “Anyway, Yiannopoulos isn’t really alt-right so much as he’s a showman, self-promoter and entertainer. He happens to be witty and unafraid of taking on taboos, both of which are fairly characteristic of charismatic, talented gays.”

    His writings and speeches clearly demonstrate that he is Alt-Right.

    “Like true zealots, the assorted “antifa” are defending their faith with violent attacks – in public and on camera…”

    As would ANY fringe group!

    “yet here you are demanding that Yiannopoulos renounce violence, as though he’s somehow equally to blame.”

    Milo is not to blame for inciting those leftists from engaging in violence; they are squarely responsible for their actions. He is to “blame” for stating he opposes violence by leftists, but not coming out and holding the same standard to those on the Alt-Right.

    Read More
  143. AndrewR says:
    @David Davenport
    Instead of dealing with these people, our moron-in-chief is wasting energy, time, resources and political capital on utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive shit like the travel ban.

    Please explain why the travel ban is utterly stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

    Might some of your peepul be banned?

    You’ve got me figured out, kafir.

    Read More
  144. @27 year old
    >most importantly indoctrinate their students in the ways of the Left

    Good point. Wasn't it Bob Dylan who once said "give me control of a nations children, gentlemen, and I care not who makes its laws"?

    >the sea change they will happen to DOE policies

    What sea change are you expecting?

    Two Seven, I read that teachers’ union are the biggest contributors to Dems nationwide and are their main source of volunteers. The Dems would never investigate these contributions as they are their favorite teat. Maybe the new DOE starts to follow money trails and make sure that contributions are legit. Maybe DOE starts to support teachers who don’t want their dues to go to politicians. Those two things would be a sea change.

    Read More
  145. res says:
    @Corvinus
    Exactly, allegations. Why don't you demonstrate specifically how I am employing these rhetorically devices rather than merely listing them.

    Been there. Done that. Not really worth the time, but since I did it for the others before I’ll help you out again this time.

    The complete text of what you wrote in comment 93 which I replied to (funny how that works, perhaps you should check there first to see if that was the example) was the example of false equivalence. To save you the trouble of finding it again here is what you wrote in comment 93: “Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.”

    Well, we can start with different people, different causes, and different methods. I think others (e.g. SPMoore8 in a response to comment 93) have covered more differences in earlier comments.

    See, not only compliments, but assistance with the simplest of problems. Aren’t I a nice guy…

    P.S. And as a free bonus, the phrase you were looking for was “rhetorical devices”. But “fallacies” is more accurate IMHO.

    Read More
  146. Corvinus says:

    “Been there. Done that. Not really worth the time, but since I did it for the others before I’ll help you out again this time.”

    So, in the past, you had listed AND explained my errors in logic? Why don’t you take us down a memory lane and offer specific links to this endeavor?

    “Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.”

    All you did was state there was a false equivalence here. You needed to actually support your claim. Regardless, both have a crusade, that being disruption and chaos. Try harder next time to clarify.

    “P.S. And as a free bonus, the phrase you were looking for was “rhetorical devices”. But “fallacies” is more accurate IMHO.”

    The phrase I used was correct and, as you suggested, more accurate.

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I guess I showed you why it can be a bad idea to use the reply button. It makes it obvious when you try to bring up something already covered as an issue. Happily for me it's easy enough to just use comment numbers and/or links as references.

    All you did was state there was a false equivalence here. You needed to actually support your claim.
     
    You mean like I did in comment 154 (i.e. the comment you were replying to in fact if not in link)? "Well, we can start with different people, different causes, and different methods. I think others (e.g. SPMoore8 in a response to comment 93) have covered more differences in earlier comments."

    I was not more specific in comment 103 because I thought it blindingly obvious that "observably no difference" was unsupportable and therefore the equivalence was clearly false. I must remember that it is important to keep the audience in mind.


    The phrase I used was correct and, as you suggested, more accurate.
     
    Why do you double down when you make a mistake and get called on it? Let's go through this. In comment 149 you used the phrase "rhetorically devices"
    devices is a noun, rhetorically is an adverb (the ly ending should be a hint)
    adverbs are used to modify verbs (or adjectives or other adverbs), if you want to modify a noun you use an adjective (e.g. rhetorical)
    Hence the correct phrase is "rhetorical devices" as I noted in comment 154.
    In case the grammar argument is not sufficient, let's see what Google ngrams think of your phrase:
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rhetorical+devices%2Crhetorically+devices&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crhetorical%20devices%3B%2Cc0
    Congratulations, you coined a phrase never before used in a book! (see, more compliments)

    I also tried searching for "rhetorically devices" on Google and got all of 31 hits along with:
    Did you mean: "rhetorical devices"
    Clicking on which gave 487,000 results. I think the people have spoken.


    Why don’t you take us down a memory lane and offer specific links to this endeavor?
     
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/yet-another-hate-hoax-on-campus/#comment-1405706

    Although on rereading that I may not have been specific enough, so in my spirit of accommodation I'll elaborate. When I said "Are you really unable to tell the difference between having a clue and exact statistics?" My not having exact statistics would be your motte (the strong point, i.e. easily defensible) argument. Conflating that with me not having a clue (your bailey, not really defensible) is what makes it a fallacy. It is perfectly possible to have an idea of trends in your posts without having exact statistics.

    And for completeness here are a couple of strawman links from another thread:
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/racial-gang-attacks-why-wont-the-msm-tell-us-the-numbers/#comment-1724075
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/racial-gang-attacks-why-wont-the-msm-tell-us-the-numbers/#comment-1725550

    Hope everyone has enjoyed this stroll down the memory lane of Corvinus's "rhetorically devices." Remember, don't try this at home, kids.

  147. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "Been there. Done that. Not really worth the time, but since I did it for the others before I’ll help you out again this time."

    So, in the past, you had listed AND explained my errors in logic? Why don't you take us down a memory lane and offer specific links to this endeavor?

    "Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.”

    All you did was state there was a false equivalence here. You needed to actually support your claim. Regardless, both have a crusade, that being disruption and chaos. Try harder next time to clarify.

    "P.S. And as a free bonus, the phrase you were looking for was “rhetorical devices”. But “fallacies” is more accurate IMHO."

    The phrase I used was correct and, as you suggested, more accurate.

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

    I guess I showed you why it can be a bad idea to use the reply button. It makes it obvious when you try to bring up something already covered as an issue. Happily for me it’s easy enough to just use comment numbers and/or links as references.

    All you did was state there was a false equivalence here. You needed to actually support your claim.

    You mean like I did in comment 154 (i.e. the comment you were replying to in fact if not in link)? “Well, we can start with different people, different causes, and different methods. I think others (e.g. SPMoore8 in a response to comment 93) have covered more differences in earlier comments.”

    I was not more specific in comment 103 because I thought it blindingly obvious that “observably no difference” was unsupportable and therefore the equivalence was clearly false. I must remember that it is important to keep the audience in mind.

    The phrase I used was correct and, as you suggested, more accurate.

    Why do you double down when you make a mistake and get called on it? Let’s go through this. In comment 149 you used the phrase “rhetorically devices”
    devices is a noun, rhetorically is an adverb (the ly ending should be a hint)
    adverbs are used to modify verbs (or adjectives or other adverbs), if you want to modify a noun you use an adjective (e.g. rhetorical)
    Hence the correct phrase is “rhetorical devices” as I noted in comment 154.
    In case the grammar argument is not sufficient, let’s see what Google ngrams think of your phrase:

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rhetorical+devices%2Crhetorically+devices&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crhetorical%20devices%3B%2Cc0

    Congratulations, you coined a phrase never before used in a book! (see, more compliments)

    I also tried searching for “rhetorically devices” on Google and got all of 31 hits along with:
    Did you mean: “rhetorical devices”
    Clicking on which gave 487,000 results. I think the people have spoken.

    Why don’t you take us down a memory lane and offer specific links to this endeavor?

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/yet-another-hate-hoax-on-campus/#comment-1405706

    Although on rereading that I may not have been specific enough, so in my spirit of accommodation I’ll elaborate. When I said “Are you really unable to tell the difference between having a clue and exact statistics?” My not having exact statistics would be your motte (the strong point, i.e. easily defensible) argument. Conflating that with me not having a clue (your bailey, not really defensible) is what makes it a fallacy. It is perfectly possible to have an idea of trends in your posts without having exact statistics.

    And for completeness here are a couple of strawman links from another thread:

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/racial-gang-attacks-why-wont-the-msm-tell-us-the-numbers/#comment-1724075

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/racial-gang-attacks-why-wont-the-msm-tell-us-the-numbers/#comment-1725550

    Hope everyone has enjoyed this stroll down the memory lane of Corvinus’s “rhetorically devices.” Remember, don’t try this at home, kids.

    Read More
  148. @Corvinus
    "Tell me again, who are the haters?"

    Clearly, Yiannopoulos and his (her?) henchmen, along with JUAN PRIETO, NISA DANG, and NEIL LAWRENCE. There is observably no difference between their crusade.

    M. Yiannopoulos has never advocated violence, not overtly, not implicitly, and not in any way. He’s always claimed that the values of conservatism will prevail due to its innate truth and has always challenged people to debate him with words, not fists.

    Read More
  149. […] to op-eds from the Daily Californian, which is the University’s newspaper, some students were in praise of the violence, […]

    Read More
  150. Schultz says:

    I wonder if these brainwashed braindead libtards have thought about the consequences of using violence against evil racist white people? It’s only a matter of time and their escalating violence is going to be met with the same in the name of self defense.
    Have they forgotten that the evil white man owns millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition?

    I guess the poor pathetic fools are going to have to learn the hard way that a wine bottle full of gasoline is no match for Bubba redneck and his hunting rifle, defending his home.

    Read More
  151. […] A student at Berkeley–who also happens to be an “undocumented immigrant”–praised the “so-called violence” of the protest for stopping the violence of Milo’s […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored